Srom  f  ^e  feifirart  of 

(profe06or  ^amuef  (ttliffer 

in  (Jltemotg  of 

gub^e  ^amuef  (gXifPer  Qgrecftinrib^e 

^reeenfcb  6g 

^amuef  (Qtiffer  QBrecftinribge  feon^ 

to  f  ^e  feifirari?  of 

(Princeton  t^eofogtcaf  ^eminarj^ 

7siL 


r 


u^  ^  V     »v»  Y"  '^ 


•*.     iJr 


X  .A 


lLIS'5r^53!B§ 


MINISTRY,  RITUAL,  AND  DOCTRINES 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 

ADDRESSED  TO  THE 

REV.  WM.  E.  WYATT,  D.D. 

Associate  Mioisterof  St.  Paul's  Parish,  Baltimore,  and  Protessor  of  Theology  ia 
the  University  of  Maryland, 


3In  repl^  to  a  @)ermon 


SXHIBITING  SOME  OF    THE   PHINCIPAI,   DOCTRISES  OF   THE   pnOTESTAST  EPISCOPAI. 
CHUBjCU  in   THE   UNITED    STATES, 


BY  JARED  SPARKS,  A.  M. 

MINISTER  OF  THE  FIRST  INDEPENDENT  CHURCH  OF  BAtTIMORf . 


'Baltimore: 

PUBLISHED  BY  N.  G.  MAXWELL, 

NO.  140  BALTIMORE  STREET. 

1820. 

.TOnV    D.  TOT,  PRINTER, 


LETTER  I. 

On  the  ministry  of  the  episcopal  church. 

Reasons  for  discussing  the  subject — Our  Saviour  gave  no  instruc- 
tions respecting  any  particular  mode  of  church  government — 
Said  nothing  of  three  orders  of  ministry — The  first  church  at 
Jerusalem  was  governed  by  the  apostles,  elders,  and  brethren — 

*  Deacons — The  ceremony  of  ordination  was  performed  by  any  of- 
ficers of  regular  standing  in  the  church — Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  ordained  by  "prophets  and  teachers" — Opinions  of  Kui- 
noel,  Rosenmuller,  Hammond,  and  Le  Clerc — Episcopalians 
fond  of  quoting  the  Fathers — Authority  of  the  Fathers — Opi- 
nions of  Milton  and  Jeremy  Taylor — Ignatius'  epistles — Testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  against  episcopacy — Opinions  of  Paley, 
f  iocke,  the  bishop  of  Lincoln — Ecclesiastical  government  essen- 
tially a  government  of  the  people.  p.  5 

LETTER  IL 

On  the  ritual  of  the  church. 
Baptism — Church  form  not  scriptural — Sign  of  tlie  cross — Con- 
firmation— These  forms  nearly  the  same  as  in  the  Catholic 
church — Ordination  service — Expediency  and  utility  of  forms 
of  prayer— Their  disadvantages— Origin  of  Saints'  days — Bos- 
suet,  p.  53 

LETTER  in. 

On  the  authority  of  the  church  in  controversies  of  faith. 
Our  Saviour  gave  no  authority  to  any  man,  or  bod}'  of  men,  to 
judge  others  for  their  religious  opinions — Christians  have  no 
other  rule  of  faith  than  the  Bible-— Chillingworth — Athanasian 
creed — Historical  sketch  of  the  first  conventions  of  the  Ame- 
rican episcopal  church  after  the  revolution — Injurious  ten- 
dency of  creeds  and  articles,  both  on  the  clergy  and  the  people 
—Many  christians  cannot  conscientiously  worship  according  to 
the  liturgy  of  the  church — Inconsistency  of  holding  to  the  au- 
thority of  tradition,  and  rejecting  infallibility — How  creeds 
keep  schism  out  of  the  church — Milton's  opinion.  p.  79 


IV 

LETTER  IV. 

On  the  doctrinal  character  of  the  thirty-nine  articles. 
The  fundamental  doctrines  of  Calvinism  fully  set  forth  in  the  ar- 
ticles and  homilies — Ninth  article — Homilies — Seventeenth  ar- 
ticle— ^Bishop  Burnet's  exposition — Opinions  of  the  first  re- 
formers calvinistic — Nowel's  catechism — Latimer's  sermons — 
Bishop's  Bible — Oxford  theses — Ridley's  letter  on  election  and 
predestination— .Lambeth  articles — Heylin — University  of  Cam- 
bridge— Synod  of  Dort — English  delegates  were  all  calvinists— 
Strange  doctrine  of  the  eighteenth  article — Arminian  mode 
of  interpreting  the  articles  indefensible — Proposed  summary  of 
faith.  p.  109 

LETTER  V. 

Doctrine  of  the  trinity  as  held  by  the  episcopal  church. 
Litany — The  worship  it  inculcates — Doctrine  of  the  trinity 
contained  in  the  articles — Opinions  of  learned  episcopalians 
— There  is  one  true  God — The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not 
this  one  true  God,  but  a  subordinate  being — Doctrine  of  two 
natures — The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  the  true  God — Jews  had  no 
conceptions  of  any  threefold  distinction  in  the  Deity— Nor  had 
the  disciples  of  Jesus — Nor  did  the  apostles  preach  any  such 
doctrine  after  the  ascension  of  Christ — The  christians  of  the 
first  century  were  principally,  if  not  entirely,  unitarians — Origin 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  p.  14x: 

LETTER  Yl. 

Exposition  of  certain  texts  of  scripture  supposed  to  favour  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity. 

Objections  answered — Use  of  reason — Mysteries — Burgh's  Reply 
to  Lindsey — Jones  on  the  Trinity — His  singular  mode  of  inter- 
preting the  scriptures — All  the  texts  considered  in  which 
Christ  is  called,  or  supposed  to  be  called  God — None  of  these 
prove  him  to  be  the  Supreme  Being — Texts,  which  are  thought 
to  ascribe  such  properties  or  powers  to  Christ,  as  could  belong 
only  to  God — How  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one — Christ 
possessed  the  attributes  of  God  in  a  limited  degree — God  the 
only  object  of  religious  homage — Form  of  baptism — Commu- 
nion of  th^  Holy  Spirit — Concluding  remarks.  p.  195 


i.is^^a:B  St 


Reverend  and  dear  sir, 

When  your  late  discourse  on  the  ministry  and 
doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  first  ap- 
peared, I  engaged  with  ranch  interest  in  its  perusal. 
The  design  you  proposed  of  explaining  at  large  the 
principal  doctrines,  and  distinguishing  characteristics 
of  this  church,  led  me  to  anticipate  much  pleasure 
^nd  improvement  from  the  execution.  If  I  have  been 
disappointed  in  some  of  my  expectations,  I  could  nofc 
fail  to  be  gratified  with  the  spirit  of  candour  and  good 
intention  which  pervades  your  discourse;  and  I  hope 
I  have  not  read  it  without  profit,  if  I  have  without 
conviction. 

In  the  remarks  I  am  about  to  make,  I  have  no  de- 
sign to  point  out  intentional  misrepresentations,  or  to 
question  your  motives.  Nor  is  it  so  much  your  owa 
private  opinions  with  which  I  am  concerned,  as  the 
doctrines  and  principles  you  have  attempted  to  ex- 
plain and  defend,  and  which  you  represent  as  form- 
ing the  most  striking  features  of  the  church  to  which 
you  belong.  Among  these  I  cannot  but  think  there 
are  many  errors;  and  not  a  few,  which  can  have  no 
other  than  an  injurious  tendency  on  the  cause  of  truth 


6 

and  a  pure  religion.  As  you  liave  thought  it  your 
iluty  to  undertake  a  public  explanation  and  defence 
of  these  doctrines,  you  cannot  be  surprised,  that  1 
should  think  it  mine,  to  adopt  a  similar  mode  of  ex- 
pressing my  opinions,  and  of  stating  my  objections. 

I  propose  first  to  consider  what  you  have  said  on 
the  MINISTRY  of  the  Episcopal  church;  and  afterwards 
to  examine  its  ritual  and  doctrines. 

I  confess  I  was  not  entirely  prepared  to  find,  at 
this  advanced  period  of  moral  and  intellectual  im- 
provement, any  member  of  a  protestant  religious  so- 
ciety, and  especially  in  this  country,  who  would  se- 
riously engage  in  the  attempt  to  establish  the  divine 
origin  of  any  particular  form  of  church  government, 
and  claim  its  lineal  descent  from  the  apostles.  I  had 
thought  the  long  agitated  controversy,  about  the  du 
vine  right  of  episcopacy,  was  generally  allowed  to  be 
at  rest,  even  in  those  countries  where  the  civil,  as  well 
as  ecclesiastical  interests  are  intimately  concerned  in 
the  result.  In  more  scholastic  times,  when  the  world 
w^as  busied  in  visions  and  dreams  as  unprofitable  as 
they  were  imaginary,  this  was  a  theme  sufficiently 
obscure  to  interest  the  lovers  of  speculation,  and  suf- 
ficiently pretending  to  engage  the  ambitious.  Few  at 
this  day,  1  supposed,  could  be  found,  who  would  not 
at  least  consider  it  a  doubtful  cause;  and  still  fewer, 
who  would  think  it  of  sufficient  importance  publicly 
to  engage  in  its  defence.  The  termination  of  the  con- 
troversy, which  was  carried  on  a  few  years  ago  in 
New- York  on  this  subject,  was  not  such,  one  would 
think,  as  to  warrant  in  the  friends  of  episcopacy  a 
desire  for  its  renewal. 


In  my  estimation  the  subject  in  itself  is  of  very  little 
importance,  because  I  am  convinced,  that  the  grounds 
which  you  and  some  others  take  are  unscriptural, 
and  consequently  untenable.  Yet  in  its  consequences 
it  is  by  no  means  unimportant.  If  any  order  of  men 
can  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people,  that,  as  an 
order,  they  are  lineal  descendants  from  the  apostles, 
and  inherit  a  right  to  their  office  by  virtue  of  this  de- 
scent, they  will  almost  necessarily  possess  an  in- 
fluence over  the  minds  and  opinions  of  the  weak  and 
credulous,  which,  unless  their  pretensions  are  well 
founded,  they  ought  not  to  possess.  In  religion,  if  in 
any  thing,  the  mind  should  be  left  unshackled.  The 
right  of  private  judgment  should  be  held  sacred,  and 
no  improper  means  should  be  used  to  restrain  inquiry, 
or  enlist  credulity. 

As  we  are  all  accountable  beings,  and  accountable 
only  for  ourselves,  it  is  our  duty  to  judge  for  our- 
selves. But  when  we  are  made  to  believe,  that  any 
man  is  endowed  with  a  portion  of  the  inspired  intel- 
ligence of  the  apostles,  and  is,  from  the  nature  of  the 
oflice  he  sustains,  more  holy  than  other  men,  shall  we 
not  be  in  danger  of  forgetting  our  obligations  to  our- 
selves, and  be  likely  in  our  religious  concerns  to 
yield  up  the  highest  prerogatives  of  our  nature— those 
of  thinking,  and  reasoning,  and  judging?  What  merit 
can  we  claim  for  thinking  and  acting  right,  if  we  do 
not  think  and  act  from  our  own  understanding  and 
freedom?  To  believe  articles,  because  others  have  be- 
lieved them,  can  scarcely  be  called  a  religious  faith. 
Tliat  faith  can  be  worth  very  little,  and  have  little 
efficacy  on  the  life,  which  is  not  built  on  personal 
knowledge  and  conviction. 


Another  evil  consequonce  of  believinj;  in  a  divine- 
ly protected  succession  of  officers  in  the  church,  is  the 
perpetuity  of  error.  Among  protestants  1  believe 
there  are  no  advocates  for  infallibility.  In  the  chris- 
tian church,  as  in  every  thing  else,  error  has  always 
been  mingled  with  truth,  and  it  does  not  appear,  that 
the  edicts  of  emperors,  the  decrees  of  councils,  or  the 
mandates  of  popes  have  been  able  to  preserve  a  pure, 
a  uniform,  or  consistent  system  of  faith.  If  such  a 
system  had  been  transmitted  without  change  from  the 
primitive  ages,  and  it  were  certain,  that  it  is  the  one 
now  adopted  by  your  church;  then  I  should  say,  your 
scheme  of  episcopacy  is  a  good  one,  and  the  notion 
of  its  divine  origin  would  add  to  its  value.  It  would 
be  the  best  means,  that  could  be  devised,  for  perpet- 
uating such  a  form  of  faith,  and  fixing  it  in  the  minds 
of  the  people. 

But  is  it  not  obvious,  that  such  a  system  would 
have  a  tendency  equally  strong  to  perpetuate  any 
form  of  belief,  whether  false  or  true?  And  are  not  all 
articles  of  faith,  which  are  not  expressed  in  the  lan- 
guage of  scripture,  subject  to  be  more  or  less  clouded 
-with  error?  If  episcopacy  be  of  divine  origin,  why 
has  it  not  preserved  a  pure  and  consistent  faith.  The 
Greek  church  is  episcopal,  and  so  is  the  Roman, 
and  still  they  differ  in  many  essential  points  from 
each  other,  as  well  as  from  the  English  church  And 
does  not  the  episcopal  church  of  the  United  States 
reject  some  parts  of  the  old  bo<»k  of  Common  Prayer, 
which  ar«^  thought  so  important  in  the  English  church, 
as  to  be  commanded  by  the  laws  to  be  publicly  read 
at  stated  times?  Why  are  the  Athanasian  creed,  and 
some  other  parts  of  the  liturgy  left  out,  unless  it  be^ 


9 

that  they  are  thought  imscriptural?  The  creeds  of 
episcopal  churches  have  changed  essentially  from 
time  to  time,  and  at  present  they  differ  essentially 
among  themselves.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  these 
churches  have  many  errors  in  their  articles  of  belief, 
and  my  position  is,  that  the  scheme  of  episcopacy  is 
peculiarly  calculated  to  perpetuate  these  errors. 

There  is  another  consideration  of  some  importance 
to  me,  and  to  all,  who  do  not  agree  with  episcopa- 
lians on  the  subject  of  church  government.  If  you 
are  right,  we  are  all  wrong.  If,  as  you  say,  ^'to 
the  order  of  bishops  alone  belongs  the  power  of 
ordaining  ministers,''  then  no  ministers  out  of  the 
pale  of  episcopacy  have  ever  been  ordained.  They 
have  usurped  au  office,  which  did  not  belong  to  them; 
they  have  undertaken  the  discharge  of  duties,  for 
which  they  were  not  qualified;  they  have  been  guilty 
of  a  rashness,  which  nothing  but  their  obstinacy  could 
account  for,  or  their  ignorance  excuse.  The  positive 
ordinances  of  the  church,  administered  by  them,  have 
been  invalid,  and  unaccompanied  by  any  of  those  good, 
effects  for  which  they  were  designed.  Baptism  per- 
formed by  them  has  had  no  efficacy;  and  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  supper,  although  done  in  com- 
pliance with  the  express  commands  of  our  Saviour, 
has  been  rather  a  dishonor  to  his  name,  than  a  means 
of  procuring  spiritual  comfort,  and  the  rewards  of 
obedience  for  his  followers.  These,  you  will  allow, 
are  serious  considerations,  not  only  to  ministers,  but 
to  the  people  of  their  charge,  who,  if  your  statement 
be  correct,  are  ignorantly  entrusting  their  spiritual 
concerns  to  an  unauthorized  and  unprofitable  min- 
istry» 


10 

It  certainly  cannot  be  thought  strange,  thiat  any 
clergyman,  who  is  implicated  in  this  charge,  should 
feel  it  his  duty  to  assert  and  maintain  what  he  con- 
ceives to  be  his  just  claims,  and  show  the  fallacy  of 
such  pretensions,  as  arrogate  to  any  class  of  men  the 
conclusive  character  of  being  descendants  from  the 
apostles. 

The  first  part  of  your  discourse  is  taken  up  in  prov- 
ing, that  the  episcopal  church  is  the  only  true  church, 
that  its  ministry  originated  with  the  apostles,  and  has 
descended  down  to  the  present  time,  "through  an  un- 
broken and  divinely  protected  succession/^  and  that 
ordinations,  performed  by  any  other  persons  than 
bishops,  are  ^*devoid  of  every  degree  of  validity  and 
efficacy  in  conferring  spiritual  offce  and  powerJ^^ 
This  shall  be  the  subject  of  my  first  letter. 

I  agree  with  you,  that  "when  the  gospel  enjoins  us 
*to  be  ready  always  to  give  an  answer  to  every  man 
that  asketh  us  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  us,'  and 
<to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints;'  it  equally  obliges  us  to  ascertain  and 
thoroughly  understand  what  the  characteristics  of  that 
faith  may  be,"  p.  10.  It  is  true,  if  we  do  not  ascer- 
tain, we  believe  without  knowledge;  and  if  we  do  not 
understand,  we  believe  without  evidence.  Faith 
without  knowledge,  or  evidence,  can  scarcely  be  called 
a  rational  faith;  and  to  believe  what  we  do  not  under- 
stand, if  it  be  possible,  is  useless.  A  religious  faith 
is  meant  to  be  the  guide  to  a  religious  life,  and  if  its 
objects  are  unintelligible,  it  must  indeed  be  a  blind 
guide.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  faiHi  of  preju- 
dice, or  of  ignorance.     I  unite  with  you  cordially  in 


11 

the,  opinion,  therefore,  that  its  characteristics  should 
be  thoroughly  understood. 

In  the  scriptures  are  contained  the  only  grounds  of 
this  faith.  No  mode  of  church  government  can  be 
considered  of  divine  origin^  which  is  not  enjoined  in 
the  most  absolute  terms  in  the  scriptures,  and  no  ar- 
ticles of  faith  can  be  considered  of  divine  authority, 
which  are  not  there  explicitly  stated.  Possible  de- 
signs, and  probable  inferences  are  not  here  to  be  taken. 
We  must  have  plain  arguments,  positive  proofs,  di- 
rect conclusions,  before  we  can  venture  to  pronounce 
any  scheme  of  government,  or  any  summary  of  arti- 
cles, to  be  built  on  divine  authority.  The  decrees  of 
councils,  and  the  traditions  of  the  church  can  be  of  no 
weight,  and  ought  not  to  be  quoted  on  these  points, 
while  we  have  the  scriptures  in  our  hands.  In  dis- 
cussing this  subject,  therefore,  I  shall  not  think  it 
important  to  resort  to  any  other  authorities,  than  such 
as  are  contained  in  the  word  of  God.  The  plain 
truths  of  scripture  will  always  remain  the  same,  what- 
ever may  have  been,  or  may  still  be,  the  opinions  of 
men. 

Your  first  proposition,  in  regard  to  the  ministry  of 
the  episcopal  church,  is  as  follows.  <^This  ministry 
consists  of  three  distinct  orders,  bishopSf  priestSf  and 
deacons.  From  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel  by 
Jesus  Christ,  these  three  orders  were  apparent,  de- 
signated by  different  names,  and  possessing  and  ex- 
ercising different  powers,"  p.  H. 

These  orders  you  represent  to  have  consisted  of 
our  Saviour,  the  apostles,  and  the  seventy,  who  were 
sent  forth  to  preach.  Now,  is  it  not  a  little  remark- 
able, if  Jesus  intended  the  ministry  of  his  church  to 


IS 

consist  of  three  orders,  and  to  be  transmitted  in  this 
form  through  all  succeeding  ages,  that  he  should  not 
have  given  some  directions  on  so  important  a  subject? 
Is  it  credible,  that,  if  he  intended  a  particular  class 
of  persons  only  should  be  qualified  for  administering 
the  ordinances  of  his  religion,  he  would  not  have  given 
some  positive  instructions  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
their  qualifications?  But  what  is  the  truth?  Not  a 
hint  is  found  in  the  whole  four  gospels,  that  he  de- 
signed either  to  establish  or  perpetuate  any  such  form 
of  church  government,  as  the  one  you  have  mentioned. 
His  last  commission  to  his  disciples  is  given  in  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit;  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  1  have  commanded  you."  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  SO.  He  never  mentioned  three  orders,  or 
any  number  of  orders  of  priesthood.  He  never  spoke 
of  bishops  or  deacons.  He  pointed  out  no  particular 
modes  of  ordination,  nor  designated  any  description 
of  persons  by  whom  this  ceremony  should  be  per- 
formed. 

What  is  the  natural  conclusion,  except  that  he  did 
not  think  it  important  what  mode  his  followers  should 
adopt  to  preserve  the  outward  forms  of  his  religion, 
provided  they  were  careful  to  embrace  its  doctrines, 
imbibe  its  spirit,  and  live  by  its  precepts?  Whatever 
conclusion  we  may  draw,  we  must  rest  in  this  cer- 
tainty, that  our  Saviour  left  no  instructions  respect- 
ing any  particular  form  of  c!)urcb  government.  Wo 
have  no  other  scripture  authority  on  this  subject,  than 
what  we  derive  from  the  writings  and  example  of  the 


13 

apostles  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ.     I  will  next 
examine  your  statements   as  drawn  from  that  source. 
You  go  on  to  observe,  "when  our  Lord  had   as- 
cended up  on  high,  the  apostles  ordained  the  seven 
deacons  to  discharge  the  inferior  offices  of  the  minis- 
try, and  to  preserve  the  system  inviolate.'^''     What 
system  had  been  broken?  Our  Lord  had  not  mention- 
ed any  system.     And  even,  if  he  had  commanded  his 
disciples  to  preserve  the  three  orders,  which  you  sup- 
pose  he   established,  would  they  not   have  chosen 
some    one  to  supply  the  place,   which  had  become 
vacant?     Would  it  not  be  most  rational  to  believe, 
if  it  were  intended  they  should  keep  the  ^"system  in- 
violate,''that  they  would  have  appointed  some  person 
to  Constitute  the  order,  which  had  ceased,  wheu  Christ 
ascended  to  heaven:  and  to  take  charge  of  the  general 
concerns  of  the  church,  as   he  had   done   while    on 
earth?  How  else  could  the  orders  have  been  regularly 
preserved?  But  what  is  the  fact  respecting  the  seven 
otficers,  whom  you  call  deacons?   For  what  purpose 
were  they  chosen?  Instead  of  being  appointed  to  su- 
perintend  the  concerns  of  the  church,  or  indeed  to 
supply  any  order  of  the  ministry,  their  office  does  not. 
seem  to  have  been  designed  even  for  an  ecclesiastical 
purpose. 

The  reason  for  this  appointment  is  seen  in  the  fol- 
lowing text.  "And  in  those  days,  when  the  number 
of  the  disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  mur- 
muring of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because 
their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministra- 
tion.^' Acts  vi.  1.  Here  the  Gentile,  or  more  proper- 
ly the  Hellenistic  converts  complain,  that  they  were 
neglected  by  the  Hebrew  officers,  whose  duty  it  was 
3 


14 

to  provide  for  the  poor.*  The  apostles  immediately 
advised  them  to  choose  a  certain  number  of  persons, 
to  whom  this  duty  might  be  entrusted,  intimating  that 
it  was  not  an  office,  with  which,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  more  important  calling,  they  ought  to  be  trou- 
bled. The  people  accordingly  chose  seven  from 
among  themselves,  who  were  approved  and  appoint- 
ed to  theoffice  by  the  apostles. 

But  this  office  did  not  constitute  a  new  order. 
They  were  chosen  to  aid  others,  who  had  neglected 
to  do  their  duty.  Their  appointment  was  merely  a 
matter  of  expediency,  or  convenience,  to  afford  more 
extensive  relief  to  the  poor,  and  to  prevent  the  jea- 
lousy and  complaints,  which  had  begun  to  spring  up 
among  the  Hellenistic  and  Hebrew  converts.  It  was 
in  no  respect  an  office  for  spiritual  purposes,  and  cer- 
tainly cannot  be  considered  as  forming  a  part  of  the 
christian  ministry.  One  of  them,  Stephen,  is  repre- 
sented as  "a  man  full  of  faith,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit;" 
and  Philip,  in  another  place,  is  called  an  evangelist, 
but  in  no  connexion  with  this  office.  Why  you  call 
them  deacons,  I  cannot  tell,  as  no  such  name  is  given 

*  The  "Grecians,"  or  Hellenists,  mentioned  in  the  text,  were 
probably  proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion  from  among  the  Greeks, 
or  the  descendants  of  such  persons,  who  had  embraced  Christiani- 
ty. See  Kenrick's  Exposition,  vol,  iii.  p.  109.  and  Newcome,  in 
loc.  It  is  well  known,  that  these  proselytes  did  not  enjoy  the 
same  civil  privileges  in  Judea,  as  the  native  Israelites.  This 
caused  prejudices  to  be  kindled  amonj;  them,  w  hich  were  not  en- 
tirely reuioved  after  their  conversion  to  Christianity.  We  may 
hence  see  the  reason  of  the  complaint  in  the  text.  The  Hebrews 
attended  to  their  own  poor,  and  neglected  those  of  the  proselyte 
converts.  This  is  the  more  probable,  as  Nicolas  of  Antioch, 
one  of  the  seven  officers,  was  a  proselyte. 


IS 

them.  Neither  is  the  word  used  in  the  whole  book 
of  Acts. 

Let  us  proceed  to  your  next  statement  of  the  orders 
of  the  ministry.  After  the  appointment  of  the  seven 
ofiRcers  just  mentioned,  you  say,  "there  were  then  the 
apostles  and  those  associated  with  them,  as  Titus, 
Timothy,  &c.  being  the  first  order;  the  seventy,  bi- 
shops, elders,  or  presbyters,  as  they  were  promis- 
cuously called,  being  the  aecond  order;  and  the  dea- 
cons, the  third  order t'^  p.  IS.  Do  you  mean  to  consi- 
der Timothy  and  Titus  on  an  equality  with  the 
apostles?  If  a  line  of  distinction  existed  any  where, 
between  the  different  officers  of  the  ministry,  could  any 
be  more  strongly  marked,  than  that  which  separated 
those  persons,  who  had  been  the  companions  of  our 
liord,  and  had  been  the  special  messengers  of  his 
gospel,  from  all  who  were  afterwards  chosen  or  ap- 
pointed by  them?  Were  Timothy  and  Titus  ever 
called  apostles?  Why  then  should  you  assign  them 
the  same  rank?  If  being  "associated"  with  the  apos- 
tles entitled  them  to  a  place  in  the  first  order,  why 
were  not  all  bishops,  or  elders,  equally  entitled  to  this 
place?  They  were  all  associated  with  the  apostles  in 
the  great  work  of  preaching,  and  teaching,  and  ex- 
tending the  kingdom  of  Christ.  In  this  respect  they 
all  composed  but  one  order. 

As  you  allow  the  words  bishop,  elder,  and  presby- 
ter to  be  used  promiscuously  for  the  same  thing,  1 
should  not  stop  to  prove  so  obvious  a  fact,  were  it 
not  denied  in  the  book  of  "Festivals  and  Fasts,'^ 
which  is  a  manual  in  the  church,  and  which  you  re- 
commend  very  highly  to  your  readers.  In  remark- 
ing on  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  the  author,  or  editor, 


46 

observes,  ^'froni  this  unequivocal  testimony  it  fully 
appears,  that  in  the  apostolic  age^  there  were  three  or- 
ders in  the  ministry,  hisbops,  presb^yters,  and  deacons^ 
distinct  and  siihordinate,  deriving  their  commission 
from  God,  and  claimini;  the  revprence  and  obe- 
dience of  the  people,^'  p.  SS.  And  the  American 
editor  also  states,  in  a  note,  that  this  ^^testimony  is 
express  and  decided  in  support  of  the  superiority  of 
the  bishops  to  the  presbyters."  If  you  adopt  this 
statement,  in  connexion  with  your  own,  you  must 
allow  at  least  four  orders,  instead  of  three,  namely, 
apostles,  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons. 

That  elders,  presbyters,  and  bishops  were  the 
same,  is  evident  from  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Acts, 
In  this  chapter,  Maul  is  said  to  have  "sent  from  Mi- 
letus to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  elders  of  the 
church;"  and  among  his  directions,  after  they  were 
collected,  he  told  them,  "to  take  heed  unto  them- 
selves, and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  inade  them  overseers,'^  or,  as  the  word  is 
every  where  else  rendered,  bishops.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  Titus  the  words  bishop,  and  elder>  are 
used  in  different  places  for  the  same  person.  Ac? 
cording  to  Macknight,  the  name  elder  (w^fje-wrf^ o?)  was 
applied  in  the  primitive  age,  as  a  general  term,  to  all 
who  exercised  any  sacred  office  in  the  church.* 
They  seem  to  have  been  called  elders,  because  they 
were  chosen  from  among  the  first  converts,  or  perhaps 
from  among  those,  who  were  more  advanced  in  age, 
and  whose  experience  and  gravity  of  manners  gave 
weight  to  their  character, 

*  Macknight  on  the  Epistles,  vol.  iv.  p.  245. 


"We  do  not  read  in  the  scriptures  of  any  distinction 
of  rank  anions;  these  officers;  but  we  are  often  told  of 
their  acting  in  concert  with  the  brethren,  with  each 
other,  and  with  tlie  apostles.  In  tlie  discussion  about 
circumcision,  *'the  apostles  and  elders  came  together 
to  consider  of  this  matter."  And  when  ^'chosen 
men"  were  sent  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  An- 
tioch,  they  received  their  conaraission  from  the  ^^apos- 
tles,  and  elders,  with  the  whole  church."  The 
letter,  which  they  took,  commenced  as  follows;  *Hhe 
apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren,  send  greeting  to 
the  brethren,  which  are  of  the  Grentiles  in  Antioch, 
and  Syria,  and  Cilicia."*  Nothing  is  more  clear, 
than  that  the  government  of  the  church  at  this  time 
rested  in  a  mutual  council,  composed,  not  only  of  the 
apostles  and  elders,  but  also  of  the  brethren  at  large. 
We  hear  nothing  of  any  particular  grades  among  the 
officers.  The  apostles  themselves  assumed  no  au- 
thority above  the  elders,  or  even  the  brethren.  They 
acted  only  with  their  advice,  and  in  concert  with 
them.  Letters  were  written,  and  ministers  sent  out, 
in  the  name  of  the  whole  body  of  the  church.  This 
was  the  mode  of  government  in  the  first  church  at  Je- 
rusalem, and  it  appears  to  have  been  the  same,  as  far 
as  circumstances  would  permit,  in  all  the  primitive 
churches.  Where  you  find  any  grounds,  in  the  tran- 
sactions of  this  first  church  at  Jerusalem,  for  the  '^three 
distinct  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,"  I 
cannot  tell. 

The  deacons,  who  compose  your  third  order,  are 
not  mentioned  in  the  proceedings  of  this  church.  But 

*  Acts  XV.  6.  22. 23. 


18 

is  it  probable,  if  such  an  order  of  the  ministry  then 
existed,  that  it  would  have  been  overlooked  in   pro- 
ceediogis  so  important  as  these,  in  which  even  the 
brethren  at  large  were  allowed  to  take  an  active  part? 
I  confess  T  can  discover  nothing  in  the  account  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem,  nor  in  any  part  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  would  lead  me  to  suppose  the  deacons, 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  sustained  any  office,  which 
should  entitle  them  to  be  considered  a  distinct  order 
of  the  ministry.     The  word,  in  its  English  dress,  is 
used  only  three  times,  and  in  no  instance  with  refer- 
ence to  any  definite  office,  or  duties.     In  the  original 
use  of  this  word  in  the  New  Testament,  it  has  a  va- 
riety of  meanings.     Its  radical   signification  is  ser- 
vant, and  it  is  thus  used  for  the  most  part  in  the  gos- 
pels.    In  the  epistles  it  generally  means  what  we  un- 
dorstand    by    minister,   and   sometimes    magistrate, 
Kom.  xiii.  4.     Paul  speaks  of  himself  and  brethren 
being  made  "able  ministers  (deacons)  of  the  new  cove- 
nant."    "Wherefore  I  was  made  a  minister  (deacon) 
according  to  the  gifts  of  the  grace  of  God."     "Who 
then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  able  ministers 
(deacons)  by  whom  ye  believed?"*     Quotations  of  a 
similar  kind  might  be  multiplied;  but  these  are  suffi- 
cient to  show,  that  the  term  deacon,  instead  of  de- 
signating a  particular  order  of  men,  was  frequently 
applied   to   the  apostles  themselves.     The   apostles 
were  servants,  deacons,  or  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ. 

*  The  word  ^tecKotoi  is  used  in  thirty  places  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. In  eight  of  these  places,  it  is  rendered,  in  our  common 
version,  servant,  and  seems  to  have  precisely  the  same  meaning 
as  (S'sAa?.  In  nineteen  places  it  is  rendered  minister}  and  in 
three  only  it  is  translated  deacon. 


19 

St.  Paul  writes  to  the  ^'bishops  and  deacons"  at 
Phillippi,  as  it  is  expressed  in  our  common  version. 
But  the  Syriac  translator  renders  it  "eZrfers  and  mirf 
isterSf^'*  and  this  translation  is  in  accordance  with  the 
general  use  of  these  words,  as  is  seen  by  the  above 
quotations.     In  his  first  letter  to  Timothy,  the  apostle 
describes  the  qualifications  of  deacons,  but  nothing  is 
said  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  their  oflBce.     These 
qualifications  are  almost  precisely  the  same,  as  those 
of  a  bishop,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  same  place. 
In  the  letter  to  Titus,  instead  of  deacons,  he  calls  them 
*'aged  men;"  and  I  can  find  no  passage  in  scripture, 
from  which  it  would  appear,  that  these  men  were  dis- 
tinguished, in  respect  to  their  oflBce,  from  the  elders, 
or  presbyters.     And  whatever  the  office  of  a  deacon 
may  have  been,  it  is  evident,  that  it  was  not  appro- 
priated to  a  particular  order  of  men;  for  Paul,  Apol- 
los,  Epaphras,  and  the  magistrates,  are  called  dea- 
cons. 

The  opinion,  which  was  adopted  in  some  of  the 
earlier  churches,  and  which  is  still  retained  in  yours, 
respecting  the  office  of  deacons,  seems  to  have  origi- 
nated in  a  fancied  resemblance  between  the  deacons 
mentioned  in  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  and  the 
seven  officers  appointed  by  the  apostles,  soon  after 
the  ascension  of  our  Lord.  But  we  have  already 
seen  what  were  the  duties  of  those  men.  We  have 
seen,  that  they  were  never  called  deacons,  and  that 
their  office  was  wholly  of  a  temporal  nature. 

Among  the  duties,  which  you  enumerate  as  belong- 
ing to  the  office  of  a  deacon,  are  the  following.     *^In 

*  Senioribns  et  ministris. 


20 

addition  to  tlifir  care  of  the  poor,  the  deacons  officiated 
in  distributing  the  sacramental  emblems;  they  were 
employed  to  preach  and  baptize;  they  were  set  apart 
to  their  office  by  prayer  and  imposition  of  hands;  and 
they  were  forbidden  to  follow  any  secular  employ- 
ments," p.  13  In  what  part  of  the  scriptures  you 
find  any  of  these  characteristics  of  the  office  of  a  dea- 
con, I  cannot  conceive.  After  a  careful  examination, 
I  do  not  iind  a  single  text^  which  would  imply  either 
directly  or  remotely,  that  the  deacons  mentioned  in 
the  epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Timothy,  were 
especially  designed  for  any  of  these  duties.  The 
truth  is,  nothing  is  said  in  scripture  about  the  nature 
of  the  office^  or  about  the  duties  of  any  class  of  men  de- 
signated by  the  title  of  deacons.  As  this  name  was 
often  applied  to  the  apostles,  bishops,  and  presby- 
ters, it  is  not  unlikely,  that  it  was  at  first  used  as  a 
general  title  to  denote  a  teacher  of  the  gospel. 

In  writing  to  the  Ephesians,  St.  Paul  says  of 
Jesus,  that  he  "gave  some,  apostles;  and  some,  pro- 
phets; and  some,  evangelists;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers."  Eph.  iv.  11.  What  reason  ran  be  given, 
why  each  of  these  should  not  be  considered  a  distinct 
order,  as  well  as  either  of  the  three  you  propose? 
Schleusner,  in  conformity  with  Eu-ebius,  represents 
the  evangelists  as  sustaining  an  office  wholly  of  a  spi- 
ritual nature.*  Their  name  implies  a  teacher  of  the 
gospel.  They  were  employed  to  aid  the  apostles  in 
establishing  churches.  It  was  their  custom  to  travel 
from  place  to  place.  In  this  respect,  they  differed 
essentially  from  presbyters,  who  were  usually  con- 

*  Schleus.  Lex.  in  verb.  EvecyytK 


fined  to  the  same  church.  There  is  just  as  much 
reason  for  considering  them  a  distinct  order,  and  also 
Ihe  prophets,  pastors,  and  teachers,  as  either  of  the 
three  in  your  catalogue.  Instead  of  three  orders, 
you  would  then  have  six,  besides  deacons,  namely, 
apostles,  prophets,  bishops,  or  presbyters,  evangel- 
ists, pastors,  teachers.  And  I  am  convinced,  as 
strong  arguments  may  be  advanced  for  adopting  this 
number,  as  the  one  you  have  chosen. 

Another  point,  which  you  state  with  great  confi- 
dence, is,  that  '^it  has  been  the  faith  of  the  universal 
church,  without  exception,  until  the  period  of  the  re- 
formation^  that  to  the  order  of  bishops  alone  belongs 
the  power  of  ordaining  ministers."  In  the  "universal 
church,"  I  suppose  you  will  embrace  the  first  church 
of  the  apostolic  age.  Mot  only  so,  1  suppose  you  will 
allow  this  to  be  the  only  authentic  source,  to  wiiich  you 
can  go  for  information  on  this  subject,  VV  hat  our 
Saviour  taught,  and  the  apostles  are  said  to  have 
practised,  will  be  good  authority.  This  is  the  only 
authority  on  which  we  can  with  safety  rely,  notwith- 
standing what  may  have  been  the  '"faith  of  the  uni- 
versal church,  without  exception,"  since  that  time. 

As  Christ  left  no  instructions  about  any  particular 
kind  of  ministry  in  the  church,  so  there  are  no  words 
of  his  recorded  on  the  subject  of  ordination.  This 
alone  is  enough  to  prove,  that  the  manner,  in  which 
it  is  performed,  cannot  be  a  thing  of  so  much  impor- 
tance as  you  would  imply,  when  you  say,  that  ordi- 
nations performed  by  any  other,  than  a  bishop, 
<' would  be  devoid  of  every  degree  of  validity  and 
ejfficacy,  in  conferring  spiritual  office  and  power." 
What  w^as  the  practice  in  the  time  of  the  apostles? 
4 


Barnabas  and  Saul  were  ordained  by  ^'certain  pro- 
phets and  teachers  at  Antioch."  Acts  xiii.  1.  Here, 
it  seems,  even  the  apostle  to  the  GentiU's  was  or- 
dained by  officers  of  the  clmrch,  who  are  not  em- 
braced in  either  of  your  orjlers  of  the  ministry.  Ti- 
mothy was  ordained  by  "the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery."  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  What  can 
this  mean,  except,  that  the  ceremony  was  performed 
by  the  eiders,  or  presbyters,  in  a  holy? 

On  this  subject,  the  exani'des  of  Timothy  and  Titus 
are  usually  quoted  hy  the  abettors  of  episcopacy  with 
much  apparent  triumph.  It  is  said,  that  they  were 
commissioned  by  St.  Paul,  the  one  to  be  bishop  of 
Ephesus,  and  the  other  to  be  bishop  of  Crete,  and 
that  to  them  was  entrusted  the  sole  power  of  ordina- 
tion. It  may  first  be  remarked,  that  neither  Timothy, 
nor  Titus,  is  called  a  bishop  in  the  scriptures.  The 
postscripts,  in  whxh  this  title  is  given  to  them, 
were  added  to  the  epistles  nearly  four  hundred  years 
after  they  were  written.  No  instructions  were  given 
to  Timothy  about  ordinations,  and  he  seems  to  have 
remained  but  a  little  more  than  a  year  at  Ephesus. 
So  far  from  being  a  bishop,  St.  Paul  expressly 
charges  him  "to  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist.'^ 

Paul  writes  to  Titus,  "for  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things, 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as 
I  had  appointed  thee."  Tit.  i.  5.  In  remarking  on 
this  text,  you  speak  of  the  '•acknowledged  fact,  that 
there  were  already  many  elders  in  those  churches." 
Where  is  this  fact  acknowledged?  Certainly  not  in 
the  scriptures.  On  the  contrary,  before  Titus  went  to 
Crete,  as  far  as  we  know,  there  were  neither  elders, 


Bor  churches  in  the  island.  We  learn  no  pavticnlars  of 
this  counti-y  from  the  New  Testament,  till  the  voyage 
of  St.  Paul  to  Rome,  when  the  vessel,  in  which  lie 
sailed,  is  said  to  have  put  into  a  pent  in  Crete.  In- 
habitants of  Crete  are  mentioned  among  those,  who, 
on  the  day  of  pentecost,  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  These  were  Jews,  who,  after  they  returned, 
probably  instructed  the  people  in  what  they  had 
learnt,  but,  as  was  customary  with  the  Jewish  con- 
verts, mingled  many  errors,  in  regard  to  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  with  the  christian  doctrines.  When  St. 
Paul  was  there,  finding  what  errors  and  evil  prac- 
tices they  had  fallen  into,  and  that  they  had  no  au- 
thorized  or  well  informed  teachers  among  them, 
and  being  a  prisoner,  could  not  himself  travel  and 
preach,  he  left  Titus,  as  he  says,  *Ho  set  in  order  the 
things,  that  were  wanting,  and  to  ordain  elders."  I 
am  aware  it  is  not  particularly  mentioned,  that  Titus 
accompanied  St.  Paul  on  this  voyage;  but  neither 
have  we  any  account,  that  the  apostle  ever  again 
visited  Crete.  Dr.  Paley  thinks  Titus  was  left  in 
Crete  by  St.  Paul,  two  years  afterwards,  on  his 
return  from  Rome;  but  as  there  is  no  account  of 
any  such  voyage,  he  acknowledges  his  opinion  to 
be  hypothetical.*  Even  if  this  were  correct,  it  would 
not  affect  the  argument.  The  object  for  which  Titus 
was  left  would  be  the  same. 

From  all  that  is  known,  therefore,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  there  being  either  elders  or  churches  in 
Crete,  before  Titus  vi^it^l  the  island;  and  a  very 
strong  probability  that  there  were  none.     The  office 

*  Home  Paulinae,  chap.  xiii. 


24 

of  Titus  seems  to  have  been,  in  every  respect,  tliat  of 
an  evangelist.  He  was  commissioned  to  travel  from 
city  to  city,  to  form  churches,  and  appoint  suitable 
oflBcers.  Nor  does  it  follow  from  any  thing  in  his 
commission,  that  after  he  had  organized  churches, 
and  ordained  elders,  these  elders  could  not  ordain 
others,  in  the  same  way  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
been  ordained  by  "prophets  and  teachers,"  and  Ti- 
mothy by  the  presbytery.  In  short,  it  appears  to  me, 
if  any  thing  can  be  proved  by  direct  scriptural  tes- 
timony, it  is,  that  the  ceremony  of  ordination  was 
performed  indiscriminately  by  apostles,  prophets, 
presbyters,  evangelists,  teachers, — and  for  any  thing 
that  is  known  to  the  contrary,  by  all  officers  regular- 
ly appointed  in  the  churches. 

In  examining  the  subject  of  the  first  part  of  your 
discourse,  I  have  thus  far  confined  myself  to  the  sa- 
cred writings,  because  1  think  these  constitute  the 
only  authority,  on  which  we  ought  to  rely,  for  tire 
proof  of  the  divine  right  of  any  institution.  From 
this  examination,  I  am  convinced  that  the  scriptures 
teach  a  doctrine  on  this  subjecl,  completely  at  va- 
riance with  the  one  you  have  attempted  to  defend. 
By  way  of  recapitulation,  I  will  endeavour  to  express 
the  grounds  of  this  conviction,  in  as  few  words  as 
possible. 

First,  our  Saviour  left  no  instructions  in  regard  to 
the  nature  or  form  of  the  ministry;  he  never  spoke  of 
three  orders,  or  any  number  of  orders;  he  gave  no  di- 
rections about  the  ceremony  of  ordination,  nor  did  he 
assign  the  duty  of  performing  it  to  any  particular 
class  of  men.     Secondly^  the  apostles   said  nothing 


S5 

of  any  number  of  orders  in   the  ministry,  nor  have 
they  left  any  rules  or  instructions  on  the  subject  of 
ordination.     Thirdly,  the  first  church  at  Jerusalem 
was  governed   by  the  apostles,   elders,  and  brethren 
in    concert.      The    apostles    assumed    no    authority 
above  the  elders,  nor  the  elders  above  the  people. 
Fourthly,  it  is  no  where  said  in  the  whole  New  Tes- 
tament, that  the  duty  of  conferring  ordination  was 
confined  to  any  particular  order  of  the  ministry;   but 
on    the  contrary,  several   examples   are  on    record, 
which  go  to  prove,  that  this  ceremony  was  performed 
by  any  officer  or  officers  of  regular  standing  in  the 
church.     Fifthly,  Timothy  and  Titus  are  never  call- 
ed  bishops.     Timothy  is  expressly  called  an  evan- 
gelist; and   the   duties  of  Titus    were  such,  as  are 
usually  assigned  to  an  evangelist.     Sixthly,  the  per- 
sons who  were  appointed  by  the  apostles  to  as-ist  in 
providing  for  the  poor,  and  whom  yon  call  the  "seven 
deacons."  are  never  designated    by  this  name  in  the 
scriptures.     Their  office  was   whidly  of  a  temporal 
nature,  and  thereftire  could   make  no  part  of  the  min- 
istry.    Seventhly,  the  word   deacon  seems  to    have 
been  applied  at  first  as  a  general  term,  for  a  servant 
in  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  a  minister,  or  teacher;  and 
if  it  was  afterwards  apj^ropriated  to  any  particular 
office,  no  mention  is  made  in  the  writings  of  the  apos- 
tles respecting  the  nature  or  design  of  such  an  office. 
No  instance  is  recorded,  in  which  deacons,  as  officers 
of  an  exclusive  character,  are  said  to  have  taken  a 
part  in  the  government  or  conceriis  of  any  church. 
Lastly,  the  same  reasons,  by   which   you   establish 
three  orders  in  the  ministry,  would  prove  the  ex- 


S6 

istence  of  at  least  six  or  seven,  as  apostles,  bisbops, 
propliets,  evangelists,  elders,  teachers,  deacons.* 

1  should  not  deem  it  necessary  to  dwell  on  this 
topic  any  lon^jer,  had  you  not  mentioned  other  testi- 
mony, besides  that  of  the  scrijitures,  in  support  of 
your  views  of  episcopacy.  I  do  not  consider  this  tes- 
timony of  any  value  in  deciding  the  main  question  of 
divine  right;  but  as  you  have  introduced  it  at  some 
length  I   will   not  pass    it    over.      The    testimony 


*  The  celebrated  commentator  and  critic,  Kuinoel,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  published  about  two  years 
ago  at  Leipsic,  has  entered  at  some  length  into  the  discussion  of 
this  subject.  After  proving,  that  "lidem,  qui  in  libris  N.  T.  vo- 
eantur  eTio-KOTrei  et  Treif/^sver,  appellaritur  etiam  Tr^Bcr^vre^ot" 
which  he  says  some  have  rashly  denied,  (quod  temere  non- 
nulli  negarunt,  atque  de  disrrimine  episcoporum  et  presbytero- 
rum  in  primitiva  ecclesia  hallucinati  sunt,)  he  goes  on  to  ob- 
serve, that  the  christians,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  established  in 
the  church  a  form  of  irovernment  and  discipline  similar  to  what 
prevailed  in  the  Jewish  synagogues.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  rulers 
of  the  synagogue  to  preserve  discipline,  superintend  the  external 
concerns  of  the  respective  societies  over  which  they  were  placed, 
and  also  to  teach  and  explain  the  law.  In  the  same  manner,  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  bishops,  or  presbyters,  to  superintend  the  go- 
vernment of  the  church,  and  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  christian 
religion.  They  were  both  governors  and  teachers.  The  rulers  of 
the  synagogues  were  confined  to  particular  societies;  and  so  were 
the  tirst  bishops,  or  presbyters.  No  one  had  any  control,  except 
in  the  single  society  over  which  he  had  been  appointed.  "Episcopi 
singulis  christianorum  coetibus  praefecti  erant." 

To  show  this  resemblance  still  more  stronjjiy,  Kuinoel  further 
remarks,  that  the  rulers  of  the  synajrogues  were  called  D*Jpr» 
TTPfc-fivTs^oi,  and  quotes  Philo  and  Vitrinjia  to  prove,  that  their 
office  must  have  been  the  same  as  that  of  the  first  christian  bishops. 
Vid.  Kuinoel  Comment,  in  Act.  Apos.  Leip.  1818,  p.  G81. 


S7 

of  all  snccpedin^  ages  can  never  prove  that  to  he  a 
divine,  positive  institutiorj  in  reliiiion,  which  is  not 
sanctioned,  nay,  commanded  in  the  records  of  divine 
truth. 

It  is  remarked  of  almost  all  the  writers  in  favour  of 
episcopacy,  that  tliey  sliow  a  sini:jular  fondness  for 
the  ancient  Fathers.  1  hey  appeal  to  them  with 
scarcely  less  confidence,  than  to  the  sacred  writers 
themselves,  and  seem  to  think  that  whatever  is  doubt- 
ful in   scripture,  is   fully  settled  by  a  quotation  liom 

Rosenmuller  advances  a  similar  opinion;  and  adds,  that  pres- 
byters and  bishops,  in  the  time  ot  the  apostles,  were  the  same; 
but  afterwards  it  became  cUvStomar}^  to  call  any  person,  who  was 
eminent  among  them,  bishop,  by  way  of  distinction.  "Qui  in  ordine 
presbyterorum  primas  tenebat,  x»t'  e^oxnv  dicfbatur  o  c7rto-Ko- 
iroi."  Vid.  Kosennml.  Scholia  in  Act.  Apos.  c.  xx.  28;  et  in 
Epist.  ad  Philipp.  c.  i.  1. 

Hammond  supports  the  episcoi)al  hypothesis  in  its  fullest  ex- 
tent. [He  puts  all  the  Fathers  in  requisition,  and  quotes  profusely 
from  the  beginning  of  Ignatius  to  the  end  of  Theophylact.  He 
maintains,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  metroj.olitans,  and  proves 
it  by  the  testimony  of  'I'lieodoretand  Theoifhylact.  He  also  proves 
from  Eusebius,  that  the  hundred  cities  of  Crete  were  converted  to 
the  christian  faith  by  Paul  himself,  although  Eusebius  declares,  that, 
for  his  history  of  those  times,  he  depends  solely  oa  the  scriptures, 

Le  Clerc,  in  his  reply  to  Hammuiul,  says  that  Grotius,  and 
others,  who  found  no  authority  in  scripture  foj-  these  distinctions 
between  metropolitans,  bishops,  and  presbyters,  have  muci  more 
correct  notions.  "Nor,"  he  adds,  "can  we  receive  as  proof  the 
authority  of  ancient  Fathers,  who  wrote  more  after  the  a.anner  of 
their  age,  than  from  any  certain  knowledge;  nor  would  i  say,  that 
bishops,  or  presbyters,  are  always  to  be  trusted,  when  thej' give 
evidence  in  their  own  cause."  Nee  potest  proban  au.toritate 
scriptorum  se(|uentium  saeculorum,  iScc.  Vid.  Nov.  Test.  Ham- 
mond, et  Cleri.  Adnotationes  in  Act.  c.  xx.  28,  et  Philip- 
pi.  i  1. 


as 

some  writer,  vvlio  lived  as  long  as;o  as  the  third  er 
fourth  century.  But  let  it  be  asked,  since  we  have 
the  original  book  in  our  posession,  to  which  they  all 
referred,  what  occasion  have  we  to  consult  any  other 
authority?  These  Fathers  lived  in  a  rude  age,  and 
wrote  on  subjects  quite  difterent  from  any,  which  are 
introduced  into  modern  controversy;  their  writings 
have  been  corrupted,  and  many  forgeries  have  been 
sent  out  under  their  names;  they  have  often  written 
with  reference  to  opinions  unknown  to  us,  and  fre- 
quently contradicted  one  another.  Can  we  believe 
the  testimony  of  such  writers  to  be  of  the  least  value, 
when  the  divine  origin,  and  divinely  protected  suc- 
cession of  a  religious  institution  is  in  question? 
Daille,  in  his  celebrated  work  on  the  right  use  of  the 
Fathers,  has  staled  seventeen  reasons,  why  these  wri- 
ters are  not  to  be  implicitly  relied  on,  each  of  which 
is  enough  to  invalidate  their  authority,  in  a  question 
of  so  much  importance. 

We  find  a  similar  opinion  in  authors  of  much  more 
celebrity,  than  Daille.  The  following  is  from  Mil- 
ton. ^'Whatever  time,  or  the  heedless  hand  of  blind 
chance,  hath  drawn  from  old  to  this  present,  in  her 
huge  drag-net,  whether  fish  or  seaweed,  shells  or 
«hrubs,  unpicked,  unchosen — those  are  the  Fathers."* 
Jeremy  Taylor,  in  his  admirable  treatise  on  the  Li- 
berty of  Prophecying,  says,  'Hhere  are  some,  that 
think  they  can  determine  all  questions  in  the  world, 
by  two  or  three  sayings  of  the  Fathers,  or  by  the  con- 
sent of  so  many  as  they  will  please  to  call  a  concur- 
rent testimony;  but  this  consideration  will  soon  be  at 

*  Prose  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  87. 


'  ese  wrf- 
aa  end;  for  if  the  Fathers,  when  they  are  witnes.  j^^g^ 

tradition,  do  not  always  speak  truth,  as  it  happeuyg 
in  the  case  of  Papias,  and  his  numerous  followers, 
for  almost  three  ages  together,  then  is  their  testimo- 
ny more  improbable,  when  they  dispute  or  write  com- 
mentaries.''* Such  were  the  opinions  of  men,  who 
knew  as  much  on  this  subject,  perhaps,  as  any  other; 
and  of  such  men  as  Milton  and  Jeremy  Taylor. 

Your  testimony  from  this  source,  you  take  from 
the  book  of  Festivals  and  Fasts,  and  begin  by  re- 
marking, that  ^Hhose  denominations,  which  contro- 
vert the  divine  institution  of  episcopacy,  and  consi- 
der it  the  invention  of  an  age  subsequent  to  that  of  the 
apostles,  have  never  been  able  to  agree  upon  any  one 
period,  in  which  it  could,  even  in  their  opinion,  have 
probably  originated.''  p.  39.  Admitting  this  to  be 
true,  what  weight  has  it  in  the  argument?  It  is  not 
of  the  least  consequence,  when,  or  how,  or  where, 
episcopacy  commenced,  since  it  is  proved  not  to  have 
been  instituted  by  our  Saviour,  nor  adopted  by  the 
apostles. 

Your  first  extracts  to  prove  the  divine  right  of  epis- 
copacy, by  the  evidence  of  the  Fathers,  are  quoted 
from  Ignatius,  who  lived  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century.  Was  it  not  very  well  known  to  you,  that 
the  epistles  attributed  to  him,  and  from  which  this 
testimony  is  taken,  have  been  considered  by  very 
learned  men,  as  spurious?  No  one  has  attempted 
lately  to  defend  the  genuineness  of  all  the  epistles, 
which  were  formerly  ascribed  to  Ignatius.  Five,  at 
least,  have  been  given  up;  and  the  seven,  which  re- 

*^  Chap.  viii.  on  the  Inconsistencies  of  the  Fathers.. 
5 


30 

main,  are  universally  allf»w  ed,  even  by  those  vrho  arc 
most  zealous  in  provins;  them  _:^eiinine,  to  he  disfigur- 
ed by  interpolations.  Le  Clerc,  who  is  fully  persuad- 
ed, that  some  ot  the  epistles  attributed  to  Ignatius 
were  actually  written  by  him,  acknowledges,  that 
some  are  entirely  spurious,  and  others  interpolated.* 
Of  those,  which  are  considered  as  having  some  claims 
to  authenticity,  we  have  two  copies.  One  is  called 
the  larger,  and  the  other  the  smaller.  Kach  of  these 
copies  has  its  advocates;  but  whether  the  larger  copy 
•was  made  by  adding  to  the  smaller,  or  the  smaller 
by  abridging  the  larger,  has  not  been  ascertained. 
Each  party  in  the  controversy  adopts  the  one,  which 
is  most  agreeable  to  his  favorite  tenets. f  It  is  no 
place  here  to  go  into  the  controversy;  nor  do  I  wish 
to  do  any  thing  more,  than  simply  to  state  the  fact  of 
such  a  controversy  having  existed,  and  of  these  epis- 
tles being,  at  best,  of  too  doubtful  a  character  to  be 
quoted  as  authority  on  any  point  of  doctrine.  As 
your  discourse  was  intended  for  persons,  who  could 
not  be  supposed  to  be  very  familiarly  acquainted  with 
disputed  points  of  criticism,  if  you  thought  proper  to 
bring  testimony  from  this  source,  it  would  certainly 
not  have  been  amiss,  to  let  them  know  its  doubtful 
character,  and  the  degree  of  credit,  which  it  ought  to 
receive. 

The  American  editor  of  the  work,  which  you 
quote,  has  given  a  very  partial  view  of  this  subject. 
After  mentioning  "that  some  persons  have  attempted  to 
disprove  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles,"  he  ^dds, 
Wt  has  been  fully  vindicated  by  archbishop  Wake, 

*  Ars  Crit.  vol.  ii.  p.  331.    Ed.  Lugd.  Bat.  1778. 
t  See  General  Repos.  and  Review,  vol.  i.  p.  50. 


SI 

and  bishop  Pearson/^  What  is  the  fact?  These  wri- 
ters both  reject  some  of  the  epistles,  which  have  been 
attributed  to  Ij^natins,  and  allow  the  others  to  have 
been  mutilated.  They  maintain  the  genuineness 
of  the  less  copy,  but  they  do  not  pretend  that  it 
has  not  been  interpolated.  Archbishop  Wake  sup- 
poses the  text,  from  which  he  translated,  to  be  the 
purest  that  had  been  published,  but  does  not  at- 
tempt to  defend  it  as  immaculate.  He  receives  none 
but  the  seven  epistles;  and  the  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  these,  he  draws  principally  from  the 
reputed  epistle  of  Polycarp,  which  is  scarcely  better 
authenticated,  than  the  epistles  of  Ignatius.  He  also 
relies  implicitly  on  the  authority  of  Eusebius,  who 
lived  in  the  fourth  century,  and  who  speaks  on  this 
subject  more  from  tradition,  than  actual  knowledge.* 
Many  instances  of  interpolation  in  the  received 
epistles,  were  long  ago  discovered  by  archbishop 
Usher.  These  had  reference  principally  to  disputed 
points  of  doctrine  and  church  government,  and  were 
no  doubt  inserted  by  designing  transcribers  into  early 
copies.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  of  some  of 
these  in  another  place.  If  interpolations  have  been 
found,  even  in  what  are  called  the  genuine  epistles  of 
Ignatius,  we  want  no  stronger  proof,  that  others 
might  still  be  found,  if  we  had  access  to  earlier  and 
more  correct  manuscripts.  This  consideration,  to- 
gether with  the  doubts  hanging  over  the  whole  subject, 
is  sufficient  to  destroy  the  authority  of  these  epistles, 
especially  in  every  thing  relating  to  the  controversies 
of  the  church. 

*  See  archbishop  Wake's  Preface  and  Introductioa  to  his  trans^ 
latioQ  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 


3S 

Herbert  Marsh,  now  bishop  of  Laiulaff,  in  hig 
notes  to  Michaelis,  after  stating  that  there  is  good 
reason  for  suspecting  the  authenticity  of  all  the  wri- 
tings ascribed  to  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  among  which 
are  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  observes,  "This  at 
least  is  certain,  that  passages  are  found  in  these 
writings,  which  from  the  nature  of  the  subjects  could 
not  have  existed  in  the  iirst  century,  and  if  they 
prove  not  the  whole  to  be  spurious,  they  prove  at 
least,  that  these  writings  have  been  so  interpolated, 
as  to  make  it  difficult  to  distinguish  what  is  ge- 
nuine from  what  is  false."*  The  celebrated  scholar, 
Semler,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Marsh,  "has  made  a 
more  particular  study  of  ecclesiastical  history  per- 
haps, than  any  man  that  ever  lived,"  rejects  these 
writings  entirely  as  fabrications  of  a  later  age,  thaa 
that  in  which  they  are  pretended  to  have  been  writ- 
ten.f 

In  regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  later  Fathers,  it 
should  be  remembered,  when  they  speak  of  bishops, 
they  do  not  mean  the  same  kind  of  officers,  as  in 
modern  times  constitute  the  first  order  of  episcopacy. 
There  is  no  doubt,  that  soon  after  the  age  of  the 
apostles,  when  churches  became  very  large,  it  was 
found  convenient  to  have  presiding  officers.  When 
public  business  was  transacted,  such  as  the  ordination 
of  presbyters,  or  the  chusing  of  officers,  it  was  natu- 
ral, that  some  person  should  be  appointed  to  preside. 
In  cities,  where  several  churches  had  sprung  up,  it 

*  Michaelis,  Note  to  vol.i.  c.ii.  §  6. 

t  See  Gen.  Rep.  vol.  i.  p,  55;^ where  the  opinion  of  Sender  on 
.this  subject,  may  be  found  translated  from  his  Novae  Observa- 
tiones. 


S3 

was  convenient  to  have  a  standing  president  to  pT&. 
serve  the  harmony,  and  superintend  the  concerns  of 
the  whole.  This  president  would  be  likely  to  be  se- 
lected from  among  the  more  distinguished  bishops,  or 
presbyters.  In  length  of  time,  the  name  bishop  was 
confined  exclusively  to  this  officer.  But  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  a  bishop  had  no  more  than  a  parochial 
authority.  The  president  of  a  sins;le  church  was 
called  a  bishop,  as  well  as  the  president  of  a  larger 
number.  These  presidents,  or  bishops,  were  first 
chosen  by  the  congregations  at  large,  and  ordained, 
or  inducted  into  their  offices,  by  the  presbyters. 

Irenaeus,  whose  testimony  you  bring  in  favour  of 
episcopacy,  was  ordained,  according  to  Basnage,  by 
presbyters  only,  even  after  the  distinctions  between 
bishops  and  presbyters  began  to  exist;  and  this  is  al- 
lowed to  have  been  the  custom  of  the  church  of  Alex- 
andria, during  the  three  first  centuries.  At  length 
it  became  customary  to  invite  neighboring  bishops  to 
aid  in  this  ceremony;  and  thus,  by  degrees,  arose  the 
three  orders  in  the  ministry,  which  was  afterwards 
called  an  episcopacy. 

To  make  any  use  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
we  must  know  to  what  stage  this  government  had 
advanced,  at  the  time  when  any  one  of  them  lived. 
We  must  know  the  country  in  which  they  lived,  and 
the  extent  of  the  church  of  which  they  speak.  The 
bishop  of  a  single  church  was  much  the  same,  as  the 
minister  of  a  single  parish  at  the  present  day.  Cy- 
prian, bishop  of  Carthage,  had  charge  of  only  one 
congregation,  and  in  his  epistles  he  speaks  of  the 
people  joining  with  him  in  the  discipline  of  his 
ehurcb,   and  intimates^  that  the  choice  of  pastor«' 


3* 

rested  with  the  people.*  Jerome,  who  wrote  at  the 
be^iriDing  of  the  fifth  century,  says,  in  his  remarks 
on  the  epistle  to  Titus,  ^'among  the  ancients,  priests 
and  bishops  were  the  same,  hut  by  degrees^  the  care 
of  a  church  was  given  to  one  person,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent distention.  And  again,  "let  the  hishops  know, 
that  they  are  above  the  priests,  more  by  custom,  than 
by  the  appointment  of  Christ;^^  and  further,  "at  the 
beginning,  churches  were  governed  by  the  common 
council  of  presbyters,  like  an  aristocracy;  but  after- 
wards, the  superintendency  was  given  to  one  of  the 
presbyters,  who  was  then  called  the  bishop,  and  who 
governed  the  church,  but  still  with  the  council  of  the 
presbyters,"! 

Archbishop  King,  who  examined  this  subject  tho- 
roughly, in  his  inquiry  into  the  constitution  of  the 
primitive  church,  says,  -^a  bishop  preached,  baptized, 
and  confirmed,  so  did  a  presbyter;  a  bishop  excom- 
municated, absolved,  and  ordained,  so  did  a  presby- 
ter; whatever  a  bishop  did,  the  same  did  a  presbyter; 
the  particular  acts  of  their  office  were  the  same."J 
Origen  mentions  bishops,  but  does  not  allow,  that  their 
authority  extended  beyond  the  congregation  over 
which  they  were  placed:  and  all,  that  Tertullian 
says  on  this  subject,  is  as  applicable  to  parochial, 
as  to  diocesan,  bishops.^ 

From  this  view  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
it  is  evident,  that  it  affords  no  proof  of  the  institutioa 

*  Doddridge's  Lectures,  Part  TX.  prop.  150. 
t  Opera,  vol.  vi    p.  198.  Anecdotes,  p.,i24.  54.  See  Corruptions 
of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.  p.  240. 
J  Chap.  vi. 
§  Doddridge,  ubi  supra. 


85 

of  episcopacy  in  the  primitive  ages.     Tf  \\^^  Romer 
judge   from   the  above   quotations,    it  has  dec^  ^'  ^"® 
a  contrary  bearing.     If  you  can  prove  from  the  sS^^^" 
Fathers,   or   from  others,   that  the   present  form  t>. 
episcopacy  actually  existed  in  the  first  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity, it  will  be,  to  say  the  most,  a  very  weak  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  the  Cduse.     It  will  show  them  to 
contradict  one  another,  and   themselves,    and    what 
can  more  entirely  invalidate  their  authority? 

In  many  places  where  there  was  but  one  church, 
bishops  were  parochial  ministers,  and  nothing  more; 
in  other  places,  where  several  churches  were  united, 
bishops  had  a  sort  of  presiding  charge  over  the  whole, 
with  presbyters  to  aid  tiiem;  l)ut  they  discharged  no 
duties,  in  the  immediate  service  of  the  church,  which 
did  not  equally  belong  to  the  presbyters.  In  their 
ecclesiastical  functions,  they  were  the  same  as  pres- 
byters. Deacons,  for  a  long  time,  seem  to  have 
taken  no  part  in  the  ministry,  but  to  have  l)een  ap- 
pointed to  manage  the  temporal  concerns  of  religious 
societies.  The  churches  were  not  all  uniform  in  their 
mode  of  government.  Some  churches  gave  more 
authority  to  their  bishops  than  others;  and  some  re- 
tained their  primitive  usages  longer  than  others. 
Doddridg"  observes,  that  "the  power  of  the  bishops 
seems  to  have  prevailed  early  in  Rome;  that  of  the 
presbytery  at  Alexandria;  and  at  Carthage,  such  a 
discipline  as  comes  nearest  to  what  is  now  called 
cnngre^ationalists.'^^  The  churches  at  Alexandria 
and  Carthage  gradually  declined,  and  the  Roman 
increased.    The  church  of  England,  and  the  episco- 

*  Lectures,  vol.  ii.  p.  354. 


/ 


36 

pal  church  of  this  country,  it  seems,  are  a  branch  of 
this  Roman  church. 

Since  this  is  the  state  of  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  Fathers,  how  do  you  prove  your  position,  "that 
when  the  church  of  England  undertook  to  throw  off 
particular  doctrines  and  ceremonies  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  which  she  considered  as  neither  taught  in 
scripture,  nor  consistent  with  purity,  she  retained,  un- 
altered, the  three  orders  of  the  ministry,  as  manu 
festly  belonging  to  the  days  of  the  apostles;  and  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States, 
received  since  the  independence  of  this  country,  the 
order  of  bishops,  through  an  unbroken  and  divinely 
protected  successionV^  p.  I7. 

How  will  you  prove,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
Roman  church  itself  was  established  on  a  regular 
succession?  You  will  hardly  rely  on  the  unauthen- 
ticated  account,  that  the  apostle  Peter  lived  some 
time  at  Rome,  and  at  length  was  crucified  there, 
\vhich  even  by  Origen  is  considered  only  a  tradition. 
How  do  you  know,  that  the  bishop,  in  whom  the  Ro- 
man church  originated,  was  not  ordained  by  presby- 
ters, as  it  is  certain  such  ordinations  were  common? 
To  me  this  appears  quite  as  probable  as  any  other 
supposition.  How  is  it  ascertained,  that  even  the  first 
l)ishop  of  Rome  was  ordained  by  a  bishop,  and  not  by 
presbyters?  Eusebius  himself,  who  is  considered  the 
highest  authority  on  this  subject,  acknowledges,  that 
it  is  no  easy  thing  to  give  any  further  account  of  the 
successors  to  the  apostles  in  the  government  of  the 
churches,  than  what  is  found  in  the  writings  of  St. 
Paul.*    And  is  it  not  still  an  unsettled  question  in 

*  Euseb.  Eccles.  Hist.  1.  ii.  c.  xxxv.  1.  iii.  c.  iv.  as  quoted  bj 
Doddridge,  Lee,  vol.  ii.  p.  345, 3 J5. 


37 

history,  who  were  the  first  seven  bishops  of  Rome? 
Such  then  is  the  dark  and  uncertain  evidence  of  the 
divine  succession  of  the  stock  from  which  the  English 
church  sprang. 

lu  the  next  place,  is  it  certain,  that  the  English 
bishops  can  be  traced  up  to  the  church  of  Rome?  In 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  it  has  been  very  satis- 
factorily proved  by  Mr.  Jones,  that,  in  the  year  668, 
the  regular  succession  of  bishops  had  become  nearly 
extinct.  Many  persons  about  this  time  were  ordain- 
ed by  Aidan  and  Finan,  who  were  monks  of  the 
Scottish  monastery  of  Columbanus,  and  only  pres- 
byters. They  were  afterwards  made  bishops  by  the 
northern  princes,  whom  they  converted,  but  not  by 
a  regular  episcopal  ordination.  Many  others  were 
made  bishops  from  among  their  converts,  but  with 
nothing  more  than  presbyterian  ordination.  Is  it  not 
more  than  possible,  tliat  the  English  succession  is 
derived  from  this  source? 

Again,  the  validity  of  archbishop  Parker's  conse- 
cration, in  the  time  of  queen  Elizabeth,  is  well  known 
to  be,  at  least,  very  questionable;  yet  this  is  the  ori- 
gin of  the  present  English  succession.  Edward  the 
sixth  abolished  the  Romish  form  of  ordination,  and 
substituted  a  new  one  in  its  place,  which  is  still  re- 
tained in  tlie  church.  The  old  form  was  restored  by 
queen  Mary,  but  rejected  again  by  Elizabeth,  and 
that  of  Edward  adopted  When  Parker  was  nomi- 
nated to  be  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  1559,  she 
issued  a  commission  to  certain  bishops  to  perform  the 
ceremony  of  consecration,  according  to  the  prescribed 
form.  Some  of  them  refused  to  comply,  alleging  that 
such  a  consecration  would  not  be  valid.  She  issued 
6 


38 

another  commission  to  such  persons,  as  she  knew 
would  not  refuse,  but  whose  episcopal  authority  was 
much  to  be  doubted.  The  catholics  immediately 
disputed  this  consecration,  and  have  almost  univer- 
sally denied  its  validity.  They  profess  to  have 
proved,  that  Barlow,  the  consecrating  bishop,  was 
never  himself  consecrated.  They  say,  that  no  record 
of  this  transaction  was  found  or  cited,  till  more  than 
fifty  years  afterwards,  when  the  Lambeth  Register 
was  first  quoted.  And  even  this  register  entirely 
destroys  the  validity  of  the  consecration,  by  showing 
it  to  have  been  performed  according  to  king  Edward's 
ordinal,  which  was  not  consistent  with  any  former 
usage  of  the  church. 

1  shall  not  pretend  to  decide  on  these  objections  of 
ihe  catholics;  but  if  well  founded,  they  must  prove 
the  invalidity  of  Parker's  consecration,  and  the  weak- 
ness of  all  pretensions  in  the  church  of  England  to  a 
divine  succession. 

To  my  mind,  these  objections,  and  others,  briefly 
and  clearly  stated  in  the  memoir  of  the  Abbe  Renau- 
dot,  are  convincing.  Some  of  them  are  partially  re- 
moved in  Courayer's  elaborate  answer,  but  he  has  by 
no  means  cleared  the  subject  of  difficulties;  and  when 
it  is  known  that  he  was  an  "apostate  monk,"  as  the 
catholics  call  him,  who  wrote  to  gain  the  favour  of  an 
English  prince;  we  can  have  little  respect  for  his  can- 
dour, or  regard  for  his  authority. 

Episcopacy  was  abolished  by  an  act  of  parliament, 
in  Cromwell's  time.  All  ordinations  were  then  pres- 
byterian,  and  how  is  it  ascertained,  that  the  succes- 
sion of  episcopal  ordinations  was  not  then  broken,  or 
at  lea^t;  that  some  persons  were  not  afterwards  con- 


39 

secrated  bishops,  who,  during  this  period,  had  re- 
ceived only  presbyterian  ordination? 

Moreover,  it  has  been  the  opinion  of  many  of  the 
most  eminent  divines  and  learned  men  of  the  church 
of  England,  that  the  superiority  of  bishops  to  pres- 
byters  was  nothing  more  than  a  human  institution, 
and  consequently,  that  ordinations  by  either  was 
valid. 

To  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  it  was 
the  prevailing  sentiment  of  many  distinguished  di- 
vines, that  bishops  had  no  power  of  ordination  or 
jurisdiction,  except  in  conjunction  with  the  presby- 
ters. In  an  article  of  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  (l644) 
it  was  declared,  "that  the  bishops  shall  exercise  no 
act  of  jurisdiction  or  ordination,  without  the  consent 
and  counsel  of  the  presbyters.'^*  Bishop  Leighton 
disclaimed  all  pretences  to  the  sole  power  of  bishops. 
One  of  the  articles  which  he  proposed  to  the  dissent- 
ing brethren,  in  the  conference  at  Paisley,  runs  thus; 
"all  church  affairs  shall  be  managed  in  presbyteries 
and  synods,  by  the  free  vote  of  the  presbyters,  or  the 
major  part  of  them.''-\  Dr.  Burnet,  in  speaking  of  the 
power  of  a  bishop,  says,  "ordinations  ought  not  to  be 
so  performed  by  him,  as  to  exclude  the  assistance  and 
concurrence  of  presbyters,  both  in  the  previous  trial, 
and  in  the  ordination  itself."|  And  even  Hooker  ad- 
mits, that  "bishops,  in  the  church  of  Christ,  have  such 
authority,  as  both  to  direct  other  ministers,  and  to  see 
that  every  one  of  them  should  observe  that,   which 


*  Bibliotheca  Regia,  London,  1659,  part  i.  §  4. 

t  Case  of  Accommodation,  1671,  p.  2. 

t  Gilbert  Burnet's  Conferences,  Glasgow,  1673,  p.  lOi 


40 

\heir  common  consent  hath  agreed  on^*  These  quota- 
tions may  be  seen  at  large,  with  their  references,  in 
the  fourth  chapter  of  Sage's  Vindication.  In  the 
same  place  may  be  seen  references  to  a  great  many 
other  authors,  of  the  highest  authority,  who  express 
the  same  sentiments.  Among  others  are  Andrews, 
Whitgift;  Chillingworth,  Usher,  Hall,  Barrow,  Stil- 
lingfleet,  Sherlock,  Parker,  Taylor,  Hammond. 

Archbishop  Bancroft  believed  in  the  validity  of 
ordinations  by  presbyters.  The  following  is  from 
Hickman. 

<'Some  that  had  been  ordained  by  mere  presbyters, 
offered  themselves  in  king  James's  time,  to  be  con- 
secrated bishops  in  the  church  of  Scotland.  Dr.  An- 
drews, bishop  of  Ely,  moved  this  question;  whether 
they  should  not  first  be  episcopally  ordained  presby- 
ters, that  they  might  be  capable  of  being  admitted  to 
the  order  of  bishops?  But  archbishop  Bancroft,  a 
most  rigid  asserter  of  episcopacy,  answered;  there 
was  no  need  of  it  since  ordination  by  presbyters  was 
valid.''\ 

From  these  facts,  it  must  certainly  be  admitted, 
that  in  some  periods  of  the  English  church,  ordina- 
Hon  by  presbyters  has  been  considered  valid;  and 
how  is  it  known,  that  the  succession  of  office  may  not 
he  traced  back  from  the  bishops  of  the  present  day, 
to  those  w  ho  had  been  thus  ordained?  And  how  can 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  b.  vii.  §  6. 

t  Peirce's  Vindication,  p.  167.  How  does  the  wlioTe  mass  of 
testimony,  which  has  here  been  given,  agree  with  the  singular  as- 
sertion in  the  book  of  Festivals  and  Fasts,  that  "throughout  the 
universal  church  for  fifteen  iiundred  years,  no  instance  occurs  of 
ordination  by  presbyters,  that  was  considered  valid!"  p.  45.- 


41 

you  possibly  reconcile  the  citations,  which  have  been 
made  from  some  of  the  principal  Fathers,  with  your 
declaration,  "that  it  has  been  the  faith  of  the  univer- 
sal church,  without  exception,  until  the  period  of  the 
reformation,  that  to  the  order  of  bishops  alone  be- 
longs the  power  of  ordaining  ministers?" 

To  many  it  is  thought  not  a  little  strange,  that  the 
English  church  should  set  up  so  high  claims  to  a  di- 
vinely protected  succession,  and  at  the  same  time  ex- 
hibit such  unequivocal  manifestations  of  abhorrence 
and  contempt,  of  the  venerable  mother  church,  from 
which  it  is  descended.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  abuse, 
which  it  has  poured  out  on  the  church  of  Rome,  ever 
since  the  separation.  Scarcely  a  theological  work 
appeared  in  the  English  language,  for  the  two  first 
centuries  after  this  period,  which  did  not  contain  more 
or  less  about  the  horrors  and  pollutions  of  popery. 
The  Homilies  themselves,  which  were  appointed,  and 
are  still  required  by  the  articles,  to  be  read  at  stated 
times  in  the  churches,  are  very  full  and  direct  on  this 
subject.*  The  whole  three  sermons  against  the  peril 
of  idolatry,  are  aimed  at  the  depravity  of  the  Romish 
church.  How  can  they,  who  have  such  an  opinion 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  suppose  it  to  be  the  true 
church  of  the  Lord  Jesus?  What  do  they  find  in  the 
ministry  of  this  church,  which,  according  to  their  own 
account,  can  convince  them,  that  it  has  been  from  its 

*  According  to  one  of  the  homilies,  "She  (the  idolatrous  church  of 
Rome)  is  not  only  a  harlot,  as  the  scripture  calleth  her,  but  a  foul, 
filthy,  old,  withered  harlot— the  foulest  and  filthiest  harlot,  that 
ever  was  seen— -the  great  strumpet  of  all  strumpets."  There  is  a 
full  page  of  this  kind  of  language.  Homilies,  Fol.  1715,  p.  162. 
Sermon  against  the  Peril  of  Idolatry,  Third  Part. 


42 

origin  under  a  divine  influence?  Most  persons  would 
think  it  to  be  a  mark  of  wisdom,  to  say  as  little  as 
possible  about  a  succession  which  they  acknowledge 
has  come  through  such  a  channel,  as  they  describe  in 
the  church  of  Rome. 

Another  thing  is  somewhat  puzzling.  How  can  the 
English  clergy  claim  their  authority  from  the  apos- 
tles, when  it  is  one  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  church,  that  it  is  derived  from  the  king?  By  an 
act  of  parliament  at  the  very  commencement  of  the 
English  reformation,  it  was  decreed,  that  ^'the  king's 
majesty  justly  and  rightfully  is,  and  ought  to  be,  the 
supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England;^'*  and  ac- 
cording to  the  thirty-sixth  canon,  every  person,  be- 
fore he  enters  the  ministry,  must  acknowledge  the 
^^king's  majesty,  under  God,  to  be  the  only  supreme 
governor  of  the  realm — as  well  in  all  spiritual  or  ec- 
clesiastical things  or  causes,  as  temporal."  Has  not 
the  king  power  to  suspend  bishops,  and  prohibit 
them  from  exercising  the  functions  of  their  office? 

Bossuet,  bishop  of  Meaux,  and  one  of  the  most 
learned  of  the  catholics,  has  written  largely  on  the 
English  reformation,  and  made  it  appear,  in  the  most 
conclusive  manner,  that  this  church  can  make  no 
claims  to  any  ecclesiastical  authority,  derived  from 
the  catholic  church.  He  has  taken  his  historical  facts 
entirely  from  Burnet,  whom  no  one  can  accuse  of  par- 
tiality for  the  catholic  religion,  and  whom  no  one  will 
deny  to  have  been  an  able  advocate  of  the  reforma- 
tion, "a  distinct  narrative  of  which,"  he  says,  ^*makes 
its  apology,  as  well  as  its  history."     Yet  from  the 

*  See  Records  and  Instruments,  No.  2,  attached  to  Courayer*s 
Defence. 


43 

faithful  history  of  Burnet,  nothing  is  more  clear,  than 
that  the  English  church,  instead  of  being  a  stately 
pillar  in  the  Romish  episcopacy,  was  raised  out  of  its 
ruins. 

In  the  very  outset  of  the  reformation,  in  the  time  of 
Henry  VIM.  it  was  laid  down  as  a  maxim,  ^^that  tJMi 
king  was  pope  in  England.".  Edward  YI.  retained 
the  same  authority,  and  the  bishops  took  out  new  com.' 
missions  from  him,  which  were  to  be  "revoked  at  the 
king's  pleasure.''  The  bishops  held  only  a  preca- 
rious  power,  which  was  to  be  resigned  at  the  will  of 
the  king.  They  had  power  to  ordain  and  dismiss 
ministers,  but  they  were  required  to  do  it  "in  his  name 
and  under  his  authority."  In  short,  it  was  decreed 
in  parliament,  that  "no  one  could  have  any  jurisdic- 
tion, either  temporal,  or  spiritual,  which  was  not  de- 
rived from  the  king,  as  its  source»^^* 

Had  the  reformers  believed  in  the  divine  right  of 
episcopal  jurisdiction  is  it  possible,  that  they  would 
thus  have  taken  every  vestige  of  power  from  the  bi- 
shops,  and  given  it  into  the  hands  of  kings?  But 
whatever  may  have  been  their  opinions  on  this  sub- 
ject, it  is  certain  they  did  not  derive^  nor  profess  to 
derive,  their  authority  from  any  ecclesiastical  source. 

*  Oeuvres  de  Bossuot,  Tom.xix.  et  xx.  Historie  des  Variations 
des  Eglises  Protestantes,  liv.  vii.  Burnet's  History  of  the  Re- 
formation, Part  ii. 

In  his  concluding  remarks  on  the  control  of  the  king,  and  of  the 
civil  authority,  over  the  power  of  the  bishops,  Bossuet  observes, 
"Nul  acte  ecclesiastique,  pas  meme  ceuxqui  regardent  la  predica- 
tion, les  censures,  la  liturgie,  les  sacremens,  et  la  foi  meme,  n'a  de 
force  en  Angleterre  qu'autant  qu'il  estapprouve  et  valide  paries 
rois;  ce  qui  au  fond  donne  aux  rois  plus  que  la  parole,  et  plus  que 
I'administration  des  sacremens,  puisqu'il  les  rend  souverains  ai-bi- 
tres  de  I'un  et  de  I'autre."  Hist,  des  Var.  Liv.  10. 


44 

If  the  bishops  were  descended  from  the  apostles,  then 
it  must  have  been  by  virtue  of  this  descent,  and  this 
alone,  that  they  possessed  spiritual  authority.  It  was 
not  an  authority  of  which  kings  or  parliaments  could 
deprive  them,  and  it  showed  a  deplorable  defection  of 
principle,  or  a  pitiable  weakness,  to  bow  at  the  shrine 
of  human  greatness,  if  they  were  conscious  of  being 
bound  by  the  laws  of  a  divine  authority.  These  men 
either  did  not  believe  in  the  divine  succession,  or  their 
conduct  is  inexcusable.  If  their  authority  was  di- 
vine, it  was  permanent;  and  yet  they  suffered  their 
commissions  to  be  revoked  at  the  pleasure  of  the  king, 
were  ordained  by  rules  prescribed  by  him,  and  ven- 
tured to  publish  no  articles  of  religion,  which  had  not 
received  his  sanction.  All  spiritual  authority  was 
effectually  subordinate  to  the  temporal;  and  how  it 
can  be  argued,  that  these  bishops  were  acting  as  the 
descendants  of  the  apostles,  while  the  existence  pf 
their  authority,  and  the  extent  of  their  power,  de- 
pended solely  on  the  will  of  the  king,  is  a  question, 
which  I  must  leave  unanswered. 

Let  us  go  back  still  farther.  Has  not  the  pope 
power  to  excommunicate  whom  he  pleases,  and  annul 
their  ordinations?  If  so,  what  security  is  there  under 
his  authority  for  episcopal  succession,  or  what  is  its  va- 
lue? If  the  power,  which  it  communicates,  may  be  de- 
stroyed by  human  authority,  why  may  it  not  be  grant- 
ed by  the  same  authority?  A  power,  which  the  pope 
can  destoy,  is  in  the  fullest  sense  derived  from  him. 
There  is  a  memorable  example  of  this  in  the  catholic 
see  of  Utrecht.  All  the  bishops  of  this  see  have  been 
regularly  consecrated;  but  because  Dominick  Varlet, 
who  a  hundred  years  ago  consecrated  the  first  bishop, 


45 

was  at  that  time  under  the  censure  of  tlie  pope,  the 
whole  see  has  ever  since  been  declared  schismatical, 
and  each  successive  prelate  has  regularly  received  a 
renewed  condemnation  from  the  sovereign  Pontiff.* 
A  similar  example  is  recorded  by  Calvin,  in  the  case  of 
Eugenius  and  Amadeus.  When  by  the  decree  of  the 
council  of  Basil,  Eugenius  was  deposed,  degraded, 
and  pronounced  guilty  of  schism,  together  with  all  the 
bishops  and  cardinals,  'who  had  united  with  him  in 
opposing  the  council,  Calvin  says,  the  succession  of 
the  ministry  was  at  this  time  virtually  broken,  for, 
*'from  the  bosom  of  these  heretics  and  rebels,  have 
proceeded  all  the  popes,  cardinals,  bishops,  abbots, 
and  priests  ever  since. ''f  Be  this  as  it  may,  how 
can  that  ministry  be  said  to  have  a  divine  origin, 
and  be  kept  up  in  a  divine  succession,  which  can  be 
suspended  or  annulled  at  the  pleasure  of  a  king,  pope, 
or  council? 

I  have  thus  gone  through  with  a  patient  examina- 
tion of  the  evidence,  on  which  the  episcopal  church 
advances  its  singular  pretensions  to  a  divine  origin 
and  succession.  In  the  scriptures  I  have  found  no- 
thing, either  in  the  commands  of  our  Saviour,  or  of 
the  apostles,  which  can  justify  any  class  of  men  in  as- 
suming to  themselves  the  claim  of  being  the  only  true 
church. 

A  similar  result  has  followed  from  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers,  and  the  history  of  the  English  reforma- 
tion.    First,  it  can  be  indisputably  proved  from  the 

*  See  the  Pastoral  Letter  of  archbishop  Marechal,  to  the  Con- 
gregation of  Norfolk,  Virginia,  1819,  second  edition,  Appendix, 
p.  84. 

t  Institutes:  Dedication  to  the  King,  p.  25. 

7 


46 

Fatliers,  that  the  churches  in  the  primitive  ages  were 
not  uniformly  governed  by  three  orders  of  ministry; 
but  frequently   by  two,  and  sometimes  by  one.     Se- 
condlijy  bishops  were  parochial  clergymen,  in  many 
places  at  least,  and  nothing  more.     Thirdly,  ordina- 
tions were  performed  by  presbyters,  especially  in  the 
case  of  Irenseus,  and  for  a  long  time  in  the  church  at 
Alexandria.     Fourthly,  no  particular  account  can  be 
given  of  the  origin  of  the  church  of  Rome,  or  of  its 
first  seven  bishops.     Fifthly,  the  power  of  the  Eng- 
lish   clergy  is  confessedly    derived  from   the    king, 
and  not  from  any  church.     Sixthly,  the  informality 
of  ordination  in  the  English  church  was  such,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Catholics,  who  are  supposed  to  consti- 
tute the  true  church,  as  to  destroy  all  power,   that 
might  be  transmitted  by  the   episcopal   succession. 
Seventhly i  English  bishops  were  at  an  early  period 
consecrated  by  presbyters,  and  at  a  mnch  later  period, 
ordination  by  presbyters  was  considered  valid.     Fi. 
naliy,  the  consecration  of  archbishop  Parker,   who 
was  the  beginning  of  the  succession   since  his  time, 
both  to  English  and  American  bishops,  was  declared, 
and  is  still  considered  by  the  Catholics,  invalid,  and 
was  at  best  of  a  very  suspicious  and  doubtful  charac- 
ter. 

These  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  your  positions, 
which  it  can  be  no  easy  matter  for  the  most  sanguine 
friends  of  episcopacy  to  remove.  Taking  the  whole 
train  of  evidence  into  consideration,  the  arguments  in 
favour  of  the  jure  divino  pretensions  to  episcopacy, 
when  arrayed  in  all  their  strength,  cannot  place  it  on 
a  firmer  basis,  than  conjecture  and  possibility.  Many 
contradictioQS  must  be  reconciled,  much  positive  tes- 


47 

tiinony  destroyed,  and  much  light  brought  out  of 
darkness,  even  before  tliis  can  be  done.  Is  any  one 
willing  to  accede  to  the  extraordinary  pretensions, 
which  the  episcopal  church  makes,  to  a  divine  origin 
and  succession,  on  grounds  so  slender  and  feeble  as 
these? 

To  support  such  claims,  nothing  should  be  consi- 
dered sufficient,  but  clear,  positive,  continued,  unan- 
swerable evidence.  This  evidence  is  not  found  in 
the  Bible,  or  the  practice  of  the  primitive  ages;  it  is 
not  found  in  history,  or  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind; nor  do  I  believe  it  can  be  found  any  where. 

It  has  not  been  my  object  to  show,  that  the  epis- 
copal mode  of  church  government  is  not  a  good  one, 
when  allowed  to  stand  on  its  proper  foundation. 
Whether  it  is  well  calculated  to  promote  the  great  ob- 
jects of  the  christian  religion,  and  to  make  effectual 
the  means  of  salvation  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men, 
is  not  a  question  with  which  I  am  at  present  concerned. 
If  it  is  a  government  with  which  the  people  are  pleas- 
ed, that  is  enojigh.  They  are  the  only  proper  judges. 
It  may  perhaps  be  doubted,  whether  it  is  so  well 
adapted  to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  our  civil  govern- 
ment and  institutions,  as  some  other  form;  yet  wi)ile  it 
does  not  interfere  with  these,  and  while  it  is  allowed 
to  be  derived  from  the  people,  I  can  discover  no  rea- 
son why  any  one  should  complain. 

It  is  not  the  form  to  which  I  object,  but  the  pre- 
tensionSf  and  the  improper  influence,  which  the  heads 
of  a  church,  professing  to  be  vested  by  their  official 
character  with  apostolical  sanctity,  will  be  likely  to 
have  on  the  weaker  and  more  credulous  part  of  so- 
ciety.    It  has  been  my  aim  to  make  it  appear,  that 


48 

no  such  pretensions  are  authorized  in  the  scriptures.^ 
or  sanctioued  by  the  practice  of  the  apostolic  age. 

Archdeacon  Paley,  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments 
of  the  episcopal  church,  long  ago  placed  this  subject 
in  its  true  light,  iu  his  sermon  on  the  distinction  of 
orders  in  the  church.  He  [troves  very  clearly,  that 
the  apostolic  usages  and  directions  do  not  warrant 
any  exclusive  form  of  ecclesiastical  government.  He 
observes,  "whilst  the  precepts  of  christian  morality, 
and  the  fundamental  articles  of  its  faith,  are  for  the 
most  part  precise  and  absolute,  of  perpetual,  univer- 
sal, and  unalterable  obligation;  the  laws  which  re- 
spect the  discipline,  instruction  and  government  of 
the  community,  are  delivered  in  terms  so  general  and 
indefinite,  as  to  admit  of  an  application  adapted  to  the 
mutable  condition,  and  varying  exigencies  of  the 
christian  church." 

The  reason  for  this  is  very  obvious.  The  chris- 
tian religion  was  intended  for  all  countries,  and  all 
times;  and  it  was  necessary  that  its  external  institu- 
tions should  be  of  so  general  a  nature,  as  to  be  adapt- 
ed to  the  local  circumstances,  peculiar  situation,  and 
established  laws  of  different  communities.  It  was  the 
e7idi  and  not  the  means,  which  our  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  had  in  view.  Principles  of  faith,  rules  of 
action,  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  the  temper  of  love, 
piety  and  holiness,  were  to  be  established  in  the 
mind^  and  hearts  of  men.  How  this  object  could  best 
be  effected  under  different  circumstances,  was  left  to 
the  judgment    and   prudence  of  good  men.*     The 

*  It  is  not  a  little  amusing  to  see  with  what  raptures  the  editor 
of  Nelson's  work  on  Festivals  and  Fasts,  speaks  of  Law's  three  let-- 


49 

bishop  of  Lincoln  advances  similar  sentiments.*  Al- 
though he  labours  to  prove  episcopacy  to  he  an  apos- 
tolic institution,  he  does  not  consider  it  of  divine  ori- 
gin. As  God  has  prescribed  no  particular  mode  of 
civil  government,  so  he  acknowledges,  that  the  com- 
mands and  precepts  of  tlie  New  Testament  do  not  en- 
join any  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity. 

Locke,  who  was  also  an  episcopalian,  uses  still 
stronger  language.  ^'A  church,"  says  he,  "I  take 
to  be  a  society,  joining  themselves  together  of 
their  own  accord,  in  order  to  the  public  worship 
of  God,  in  such  a  manner  as  they  shall  judge  ac- 
ceptable to  him,  and  effectual  to  the  salvation  of 
their  souls.'^  After  having  stated  the  objection  oifer- 
ed  by  some,  that  no  society  can  be  regarded  a  true 
church,  unless  it  have  in  it  a  presbyter  or  bishop,  de- 
riving his  authority  from  the  apostles,  he  goes  on  to 
remark;  ^'to  those  who  make  this  objection,  1  answer, 
let  them  show  me  the  edict  by  which  Christ  has  im- 
posed that  law  on  his  church,  and  let  not  any  man 
think  me  impertinent,  if  in  a  thing  of  this  consequence, 

ters  to  bishop  Hoadly.  He  says  they  form  a  conclusive  answer 
to  archdeacon  Paley,  "expose  his  dangerous  errors,  detect  the 
fallacy  of  his  arguments,  and  drive  him  humbled  from  the  strong 
holds  in  which  he  fancied  himself  secure!"  And  in  what  way  is 
this  wonderful  achievement  attained?  By  taking  for  granted  the 
very  thing  to  be  proved,  namely,  that  the  "christian  ministry  is  a  di- 
vine, positive  institution,"  and  that  the  form  of  this  institution 
was  originally  episcopal.  Starting  with  these  premises,  it  re- 
quires not  much  skill  in  logic  to  infer,  that  episcopacy  is  of  divine 
origin,  and  therefore  unchangeable.  And  this  is  the  amount  of 
Law's  argument. 

*  Elements  of  Christian  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  376,  et  seqq.  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Rees,  Cycl.  Art.  Bish. 


50 

I  require  that  the  terms  of  the  edict  be  very  express 
and  positive."*  It  will  be  well  for  all  persons,  who 
believe  in  the  divine  institution  of  any  particular  order 
of  ministry,  and  that  this  order  still  remains,  to  search 
carefully  and  find  such  an  edict  before  they  are  very 
positive,  or  begin  to  seek  for  arguments  from  foreign 
and  unauthenticated  sources. 

As  no  rules  are  prescribed  in  the  scriptures  on  this 
subject,  we  have  reason  to  think,  that  all  denomi- 
nations of  christians  are  fully  authorised  to  form  such 
regulations  for  the  government  of  their  churt  hes,  as 
they  may  think  best  calculated  to  promt  tt^  the  great 
interests  o-  religion.  While  every  thing  is  done  "de- 
cently and  in  order,'"  while  they  endeavor  to  imbibe 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  acquire  the  temper,  as 
well  as  copy  the  example  of  the  apostles,  they  will 
be  conforming  to  the  will  of  God,  and  the  precepts  of 
our  Saviour. 

All  the  duties  requisite  for  personal  holiness,  and 
acceptance  with  God,  are  clearly  enjoined  in  the  scrip- 
tures; but  nothing  is  said  about  the  manner  in  which 
ministers  of  the  gospel  shall  be  chosen,  or  the  form  in 
which  they  shall  be  initiated  into  their  office.  We 
know  the  apostles,  and  their  immediate  successors, 
were  not  guided  by  any  uniform  rules  in  this  respect, 
and  we  have  no  reasons  for  supposing,  that  any  such 
rules  were  intended  to  be  applied  to  christians  of  after 
ages.  There  is  not  a  single  positive  direction  in  the 
whole  word  of  God  on  the  subject.  Every  well  or- 
dered christian  community  has  a  right  to  establish 
such  religious  institutions,  as  may  be  best  suited  to 

*  Letters  on  Toleration, 


51 

its  condition.  The  people  of  such  a  community  have, 
a  right  to  institute  such  a  form  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment, and  appoint  such  officers,  as  they  shall 
deem  expedient. 

The  government  of  the  primitive  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem, was  essentially  a.  government  of  the  people.  If 
we  are  to  follow  example,  we  certainly  can  have  none 
of  higher  authority  than  this.  It  was  a  church  to 
which  the  apostles  themselves  belonged.  If  such 
was  the  example  of  the  apostles,  we  cannot  be  in  an 
error,  if  we  make  such  our  practice.  As  the  church 
was  governed  by  the  people  then,  why  should  it  not 
be  governed  in  the  same  way  now?  Let  the  people 
adopt  such  a  form  of  government  as  they  choosey  but 
still,  let  it  be  understood  as  resting  with  them,  and  not 
be  considered  as  imposed  by  any  pretensions  to  di- 
vine authority.  If  (hey  are  pleased  with  the  episco- 
pal form,  let  them  quietly  enjoy  it.  If  they  prefer  to 
be  governed  by  associations,  assemblies,  synods, 
councils,  or  consociations,  let  them  have  the  liberty 
of  making  this  choice.  If  they  think  it  more  con- 
sonant to  the  usages  of  the  first  christians,  and  more 
consistent  with  the  principles  of  religious  freedom,  to 
unite  in  separate  societies,  and  form  such  regulations 
as  are  suited  to  their  circumstances,  let  them  nol  be 
disturbed,  or  called  schismatics,  because  they  think 
this  a  preferable  mode. 

Civil  governments,  and  the  conditions  of  society, 
will  no  doubt,  in  some  degree,  affect  ecclesiastical  in- 
stitutions. The  form  of  church  government,  which 
is  best  in  one  country,  may  not  always  be  the  best  in 
another;  yet  in  no  country,  and  under  no  circumstances, 
can  any  number  of  christians  justly   be   prohibited 


53 

from  uniting  to  wor&bip  God  after  such  a  form  as  they 
think  best,  provided  they  do  not  disturb  the  peace  of 
society,  or  encroach  on  the  civil  power. 

All  ministers  appointed  by  the  consent  and  appro- 
bation of  the  people,  whom  they  are  to  teach,  are  re- 
gularly appointed;  all  ministers  ordained  according  to 
such  forms,  as  the  people  shall  think  consistent  with 
the  general  instructions  and  tenor  of  the  scriptures, 
and  best  calculated  to  give  interest  and  solemnity  to 
the  occasion,  are  regularly  ordained  And  such  per- 
sons have  as  high  a  commission  to  administer  the  or- 
dinances of  the  christian  religion,  and  to  discharge 
all  the  duties  of  the  ministerial  office,  as  they  could 
receive  from  any  authority  residing  in  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  or  the  incumbent  of  the  Holy  See  at 
Rome. 


iLss^iaia  aii^ 


R-EVEREND  AND  DEAR  SIR, 

The  present  letter  I  shall  devote  to  a  consider- 
ation of  some  of  the  ceremonies  and  forms  contained 
in  the  ritual  of  the  episcopal  church.  You  profess  it 
to  be  the  principal  object  of  your  discourse,  to  let 
your  hearers  know,  *^why  they  are  Protestant  Episco- 
palians," in  distinction  from  other  denominations  of 
christians.  In  discharging  this  duty,  however  well 
you  may  have  succeeded  in  convincing  your  hearers 
of  the  true  grounds  of  their  faith,  and  of  the  propriety 
of  the  forms  which  they  adopt  in  religious  services, 
you  have  passed  over  many  things,  which,  I  am  in- 
clined to  think,  the  public  in  general,  to  whom  you 
have  submitted  your  discourse,  will  not  readily  un- 
derstand, or  receive,  without  a  further  explanation. 

You  have  omitted  entirely  the  ritual  of  the  church, 
which,  by  many,  is  thought  to  contain  things  not 
altogether  conformable  to  scripture,  or  calculated  to 
ensure  a  holy  practice.  Good  men,  and  pious  chris- 
tians, have  seen  in  some  of  the  ceremonies  of  the 
church  a  strange  leaning  to  the  practices  of  darker 
timeS;  when  infallibility,  papal  supremacy,  apd  the 
8 


54 

decrees  of  councils,  were  among  the  first  articles  of 
the  believer's  creed.  They  have  seen  an  unaccount- 
able departure  from  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and 
the  usages  of  the  first  christians. 

Two  positive  ordinances  only  are  enjoined  in  the 
scriptures,  namely,  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  that  in  neither  of  these,  are  any 
particular  forms  prescribed,  in  which  it  is  required 
they  shall  be  administered.  We  are  to  baptize  with 
water;  to  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in  remembrance 
of  Christ.  We  have  no  other  directions.  Nothing  is 
said  about  time,  place,  or  manner.  As  these  ordi- 
nances were  to  be  perpetual,  and  were  intended  for 
all  the  followers  of  Christ,  it  was  necessary  they 
should  be  such,  as  couid  be  complied  with  in  every 
age  and  country,  and  in  every  condition  of  civil  so- 
ciety. But  had  any  specific  forms  been  pointed  out, 
there  might  be  circumstances  under  which  they  could 
not  be  followed.  \V  henever  baptism  is  administer- 
ed with  water,  in  the  name  ot  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit;  and  whenever  the  communion  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  partaken  with  sincerity,  in  remem- 
brance of  Christ,  the  command  of  our  Saviour  will 
be  obeyed,  and  these  ordinances  will  be  valid,  what- 
ever external  forms  it  may  be  found  expedient  to 
adopt  in  their  administration. 

One  of  the  mysteries  in  the  ritual  of  the  episcopal 
church,  which  needs  explaining  to  my  understanding, 
and  probably  to  that  of  most  of  your  readers,  is  the 
form  of  baptism.  In  this  ceremony,  by  what  authori- 
ty, except  the  superstition  of  the  dark  ages,  is  the 
minister  required  to  make,  on  the  forehead  of  the  per- 
son baptized,  ^Hhe  sign  of  the  cross?"  This  relic  of 


55 

ancient  superstition  is  not  sanctioned  by  a  single  text 
of  scripture,  and  why  should  it  still  be  preserved? 
Bishop  Burnet  says,  in  speaking  of  the  origin  of  this 
practice,  ^^with  the  use  of  it,  the  devil  was  adjured  to 
go  out  of  the  person  baptized;"  and  Lactantius,  *'nor 
can  the  devils  ajjproach  to  them,  on  whom  they  see 
this  heavenly  mark;  nor  can  they  hurt  tliose,  whom 
this  heavenly  sign,  as  an  impregnable  fortress,  de- 
fends."* Whether  such  is  the  present  belief  of  the 
church  I  cannot  say,  but  it  is  certain,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Bible,  which  can  warrant  this  singular  appendage 
to  the  ceremony  of  baptism,  and  the  only  effect,  which 
so  unscriptural  a  practice  can  produce,  is  to  perpetu- 
ate error  and  superstition. 

Another  singular  part  of  this  ceremony  in  the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  is,  that  persons,  who  are  not  the  pa- 
rents of  the  child,  are  allowed,  and  indeed,  by  a 
canon  of  the  English  church,  such  are  required  to  be- 
come sureties  or  sponsors  for  the  child. f  The  Ame- 
rican convention  improved  upon  this  canon,  and 
agreed  that  ^'parents  shall  be  admitted  as  sponsors, 
if  it  be  desired."  But  when  there  are  parents,  let  it 
be  seriously  asked,  why  should  any  other  persons  be 
allowed  to  take  upon  themselves  this  important 
charge? 

*  Lact.  Instit.  lib.  iv.  c.  xxvii.  and  Force's  Vindication,  p.  157. 
It  was  formerly  the  custom  for  tlie  priest  to  exorcise  the  persons 
to  be  baptized,  "by  laying  his  hands  on  their  heads,  and  breathing 
in  their  faces,  to  expel  the  devil,  and  inspire  them  with  the  Holy 
Spirit."     See  Edinb.  Encyc.  Art.  Baptism. 

t  Canon  xxix.  "No  parent  shall  be  adn>itted  to  answer  as  god- 
father for  his  own  child.' 


56 

The  minister  says  to  the  sponsors,  "this  infant 
must  faithfully  for  his  part,  promise  by  you  that  are 
his  sureties,  (until  he  come  of  age  to  take  it  upon 
himself)  that  he  will  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his 
works,  and  constantly  believe  God's  holy  word,  and 
obediently  keep  liis  commandments."  This  is  a  very 
serious  and  solemn  engagement  on  the  part  of  the 
sponsors;  and  when  circumstances  prevent  their  hav- 
ing any  influence  over  the  child,  as  must  often  happen, 
how  are  they  to  keep  it?  They  are  required,  also,  *^to 
provide  that  the  child  may  team  the  creed,  the  Lord's 
prayer,  and  the  ten  commandments."  As  tliere  is  no 
authority  in  scripture  for  this  practice,  why  should 
the  church  expose  any  to  the  danger  of  violating  en- 
gagements so  solemn  as  these,  or  of  promising  what 
they  cannot  perform?* 

But  the  part  of  the  ceremony  which  is  the  most  ex- 
ceptionable, and  which,  indeed,  cannot  but  be  produc- 
tive of  dangerous  consequences,  is  that  in  which  are 
declared  the  nature  and  objects  of  the  institution.  The 
minister  prays,  that  the  child,  '^being  delivered  from 

*  In  the  time  of  the  apostles,  all  persons  were  baptized  as 
soon  as  they  were  converted  to  the  christian  religion.  In  the 
second  century,  some  particular  qualifications  began  to  be 
thought  necessary,  as  a  preparation  for  this  ceremony.  Persons 
were  then  first  appointed  to  give  such  preparatory  instructions  as 
were  required;  and  these  persons  were  called  sponsors.  This 
practice  does  not  appear  to  have  extended  to  infants  till  the  fourth 
century.  About  the  same  time,  as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained, 
the  sign  of  the  cross  began  first  to  be  employed.  See  New  Edinb. 
Encyclopsed.  vol.  iii.  p.  236. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  for  a  long  time,  it  was  the  duty  of 
sponsors  to  prepare  persons  for  baptism,  and  not  for  conjirma' 
tion. 


5" 

the  wrath  of  God,  may  be  received  into  the  ark  of 
Christ's  church,"  and  that  he  ^^may  receive  remission 
of  sin  by  spiritual  regeneration.^'  From  these  ex- 
pressions it  seems,  that  before  baptism,  the  church 
considers  all  infants  under  the  wrath  of  God,  and 
guilty  of  sin,  although  they  have  never  done  a  single 
action  with  the  consciousness  of  an  evil  intention.  It 
is  furthermore  implied,  that  the  mere  ceremony  of 
baptism  takes  avv^ay  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  appeases  the 
wrath  of  God. 

After  the  ceremony  is  performed  with  water  and 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  minister  says,  'Hhis  child  is 
regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's 
church."  The  same  expressions  are  used  in  baptiz- 
ing persons  advanced  to  maturer  age. 

The  above  quotations  are  from  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  authorized  by  the  American  convention. 
The  following  is  contained  in  the  English  prayer 
book,  but  was  omitted  by  the  convention.  In  the  ser- 
vice of  private  baptism,  after  the  baptismal  words  are 
pronounced,  the  minister  is  made  to  say,  *'this  child 
being  born  in  original  sin,  and  in  the  wrath  of  God, 
is  now  by  the  laver  of  regeneration  in  baptism,  re- 
ceived into  the  number  of  the  children  of  God,  and 
heirs  of  eternal  life."  Why  this  was  left  out  of 
the  American  prayer  book  we  are  not  told.  The 
language  is  a  little  stronger,  than  is  used  in  either 
parts  of  the  baptismal  service,  but  the  sentiments  are 
precisely  the  same. 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  episcopal  church,  there- 
fore, that  the  simple  act  of  baptism  washes  away 
all  former  sins,  restores  the  persons  baptized  to  the 
favour  of  God,  and  makes  them  heirs  of  salvation. 


58 

This  is  clearly  stated  in  the  twenty-seventh  article, 
which  says,  ^'Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession, 
and  mark  of  difference,  wherehy  christian  men  are 
discerned  from  others  that  be  not  christened;  but  it  is 
also  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  new  birthf  whereby, 
as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive  baptism  rightly 
are  grafted  into  the  church;  the  promises  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of 
God,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealedV  In  the  cate- 
chism, which  is  to  be  repeated  by  every  child  before 
confirmation,  baptism  is  said  to  be  *'a  death  unto  sin^ 
and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness;  for  being  by  na- 
ture born  in  sin,  and  the  children  of  wrath,  we  are 
hereby  made  the  children  of  grace.''  1'he  bishop  of 
Lincoln  has  written  a  chapter  to  prove,  that  <'the 
words  regeneration,  and  born  again,  are  in  scripture 
applied  to  the  one  immediate  effect  of  baptism  once 
administered^  and  are  never  used  as  synonymous  to 
repentance  or  reformation  of  a  christian."*  He  says 
further,  that  such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  "Liturgy, 
Articles,  and  Homilies." 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  on  this  doctrine. 
Every  one  must  see  its  dangerous  tendency.  No- 
thing is  said  about  the  sincerity,  the  moral  character, 
or  religious  intentions  of  the  person  baptized.  He 
may  be  a  hypocrite,  he  may  be  wicked  and  abandon- 
ed, without  any  actual  change  of  heart,  or  any  desire 
to  change,  and  yet  the  ceremony  will  be  equally  ef- 
fectual in  taking  away  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  making 
him  heir  to  the  promises  of  eternal  life.  Hence,  a  man, 
who  has  lived  to  an  old  age,  in  every  excess  of  wick- 

*  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  seventh  edition,  p.  87. 


09 

bdiiess,  and  has  never  been  baptized,  may  obtain  a 
a  pardon  of  all  his  past  sins,  and  secure  the  reward 
of  salvation,  by  having  the  ceremony  of  baptism  per- 
formed in  his  dying  moments.  What  other  tendency 
can  such  a  doctrine  have,  than  to  encourage  men  in 
wickedness,  and  to  deceive  them  with  false  hopes?* 
It  was  no  doubt  this  doctrine  of  the  churcli,  which 
led  Mr.  Dodwell  to  the  very  strani:;e  positions,  that 
he  has  advanced  in  his  Epistolary  Discourses.  He 
maintained  that  the  soul  is  naturally  mortal,  but  is 
immortalized  by  its  union  with  the  divine  baptismal 
spirit;  and  that  "none,  since  the  apostles,  have  the 
power  of  conferring  this  immortalizing  spirit,  except- 
ing only  the  bishops." 

*  The  case  of  Constantine  the  Great  is  a  memorable  one.  Al- 
though he  made  pretensions  to  much  warmth  of  zeal  in  the  cause 
of  Christianity,  he  delayed  baptism  '  till  a  short  time  before  his 
death.  After  a  life  stained  with  wickedness  and  murder,  and  du- 
ring the  time  of  an  alarming  sickness,  he  resorted  to  the  ceremony 
of  baptism,  as  an  expiation  of  all  his  sins,  and  a  full  preparation 
for  heaven.  This  example  was  often  followed.  Many  persons 
thought  it  prudent  not  to  hasten  a  ceremony,  which  had  the 
power  of  washing  out  the  stains  of  former  guilt,  but  which  could 
not  be  repeated. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  Chrysostom,  that  baptism  took  away  the 
guilt  of  all  passed  transgressions,  but  did  not  secure  the  person 
against  future  sin. 

"Car  bien  que  ce  sacrement  emporte  les  crimes  passes,  la  source 
de  ces  crimes  n'est  point  tarie." 

"Le  bapteme  lave  le  peche;  mais  etouftez,  s'il  se  peut,  dans  votre 
ame  I'inclination  au  mal."  Les  Homel.  des  Chrysost.  Trad,  par 
Maucroix,  Paris,  1671,  p.  333,  334. 

This  agrees  very  nearly  with  the  opinion  of  the  church,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 


60 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  the  entire  form  of 
baptism,  as  practised  iu  the  episcopal  church,  is  a 
wide  departure  from  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  No 
particular  form  is  there  prescribed.  Nothing  is  said 
about  sponsors,  or  the  sign  of  the  cross;  "renouncing 
the  devil  and  all  his  works,"  or  learning  a  creed. 
Why  then  should  we  darken  and  encumber  this  cere- 
mony with  these  unscriptural  additions?  And  above 
all,  nothing  is  said,  from  which  it  is  safe  for  us  to 
infer,  that  the  mere  ceremony  of  baptism  will  wash 
away  our  sins,  and  purify  our  natures.  We  are  there 
told,  that  the  conditions  of  salvation  are  faith,  repent- 
ance, and  a  good  life. 

Some  persons,  aware  of  the  consequence  of  this 
doctrine  as  received  by  the  church,  have  endeavoured 
to  modify  it,  and  have  reminded  us,  that  the  contem- 
plated effects  will  follow  only  on  condition  of  the 
baptism  being  "rightly  received."  But  no  such  con- 
ditions are  mentioned  in  the  baptismal  service.  The 
persons  to  whom  baptism  is  administered  are  never 
told,  that  it  will  be  ineffectual  if  they  do  not  receive  it 
rightly.  They  are  made  to  understand  by  positive 
declarations,  that  they  are  "regenerate,  and  grafted 
into  the  body  of  Christ's  church."  Infants,  in  parti- 
cular,  have  no  volition  in  this  ceremony.  Whenever 
they  receive  baptism,  they  cannot  but  receive  it  right- 
ly; and  if  the  effects  above  mentioned  are  not  always 
supposed  to  follow,  the  words  in  which  they  are  ex- 
pressed are  unmeaning,  and  should  not  be  used. 

But  the  truth  is,  it  is  evident  from  the  article  in 
which  this  condition  is  found,  that  it  does  not  refer  to 
the  disposition,  or  spiritual  state  of  the  person  baptiz- 
ed, but  to  the  manner  in  which  the  ceremony  is  per- 


61 

formed.  To  receive  baptism  rightly,  is  to  receive  it 
at  the  hands  of  a  proper  person,  and  according  to  the 
established  forms  of  the  church.  The  consequences 
of  this  ordinance,  as  it  is  required  to  be  practised  in 
the  baptismal  service,  will  not  therefore,  in  any  sense 
be  done  away  by  this  clause  in  the  twenty-seventh 
article.* 

Another  ceremony  in  the  episcopal  church,  and  one 
which  has  no  direct  scriptural  authority,  is  confirma- 
tion. All  persons,  who  have  been  baptized  when 
infants,  are  required,  after  they  have  learnt  the  creed, 
the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  ten  commandments,  to  be 
brought  before  the  bishop,  and  to  be  confirmed,  before 
they  can  partake  of  the  communion  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Did  our  Saviour  make  any  such  conditions, 
when  he  instituted  this  rite?  Where  does  he  say,  it 
is  necessary  for  any  to  be  confirmed  by  a  bishop  be- 

*  The  doctrine  and  form  of  baptism  are  taken  ahnost  literally 
from  the  Romish  church.  The  idea,  that  this  ceremony  washed 
away  original  sin,  was  early  conceived,  and  has  long  been  an  es- 
tablished doctrine  in  the  church  of  Rome. 

In  a  catechism  published  by  the  bishop  of  Meaux  for  his  diocess, 
the  following  are  said  to  be  the  effects  of  baptism.  "It  frees  the 
person  baptized  from  original  sin,  and  from  the  other  sins,  which 
he  may  have  committed  after  his  birth; — it  takes  away  the  sin, 
which  we  brought  with  iis  into  the  world,  and  gives  us  a  new  life." 
The  person  to  be  baptized  is  made  to  "renounce  the  devil,  and  all 
his  pomps,  and  all  his  works."  (Ne  renoncez-vous  pas  au  diable, 
et  a  toutes  ses  pompes,et  a  toutes  ses  oeuvres?  On  repond;j'y  re- 
Honce.)     Oeuvres  de  Bossuet,  Versailles,  1815,  Tom.  vi.  p.  39. 

From  these  quotations  it  will  be  seen,  that  there  is  no  essen- 
tial difference,  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  form  of  this  ceremony, 
between  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  church  of 
Rome. 

0 


62 

fore  they  can  become  his  disciples,  and  be  made  par- 
takers of  this  privilege. 

Moreover,  this  ceremony  of  confirmation  is  exceed- 
ingly exceptionable  in  itself.  In  a  prayer  on  this  oc- 
casion, the  bishop  says,  "we  make  our  humble  sup- 
plications unto  thee  for  these  thy  servants,  upon 
whom,  after  the  example  of  the  holy  apostles,  we  have 
now  laid  our  hands,  to  certify  them,  by  this  sigrif  of 
thy  favour  and  gracious  goodness  towards  them." 
From  this  it  would  appear,  that  bishops  are  to  be 
considered  as  communicating  the  same  powers,  and 
conferring  the  same  blessings,  as  did  the  apostles.  In 
fact,  it  is  making  them  in  this  respect,  equal  to  the 
apostles.  We  have  already  seen,  that  by  the  ceremo- 
ny of  baptism,  they  are  supposed  to  have  tlie  power 
of  procuring  a  remission  of  sins;  and  here  we  are  told, 
that  by  laying  their  hands  on  the  heads  of  certain 
persons,  they  give  a  sure  sign  of  these  same  persons 
receiving  the  special  grace  of  God. 

Do  bishops,  indeed,  imagine  themselves  to  be  not 
only  spiritual  descendants  of  the  apostles,  but  endow- 
ed with  the  same  powers?  Let  them  give  some  of  the 
evidences,  which  the  apostles  gave,  of  these  wonder- 
ful endowments.  Let  them  heal  the  sick,  perform 
miracles,  speak  in  various  tongues,  and  confer  these 
gifts  on  others.  When  they  have  done  this,  I  have  no 
doubt,  all  will  acknowledge  the  reality  of  their  high 
and  extraordinary  pretensions,  and  yield  to  their  au- 
thority. Until  they  give  some  such  evidence,  they 
cannot  be  surprised,  that  many  should  reject  the  va- 
lidity of  their  claims,  and  choose  to  consult  and  obey 
the  scriptures,  rather  than  be  guided  by  human  forms. 


63 

which  have  no  other  sanction,  than  the  authority  of 
men. 

Whenever  laying  on  of  hands  is  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  always  implies  either  a  communi- 
cation of  extraordinary  gifts,  or  an  initiation  into 
some  office.  When  Peter  and  John  "laid  their  hands 
on  the  Samaritan  converts,  they  received  the  Holy 
Spirit.''  x\cts  viii.  I7.  When  the  apostles  laid  their 
hands  on  the  seven  persons,  who  were  appointed  to 
aid  in  taking  care  of  the  poor,  (Acts  vi.  6.)  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  it  was  any  thing  more,  than  a 
form  of  induction  into  office.  Nothing  is  said  of 
their  receiving  spiritual  gijts;  nor  did  the  duties  of 
their  office  require  any. 

Paul  writes  to  Timothy  thus,  "neglect  not  the  gift, 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy, 
with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery." 
1  Tim.  iv.  14.  In  this  case,  the  laying  on  of  hands 
seems  to  have  been  a  form,  by  which  Timothy  was 
introduced  into  the  ministry,  as  well  as  a  means  of 
conferring  some  spiritual  gift.  As  those,  who  are  in- 
tended for  confirmation,  are  not  designed  to  be  intro- 
duced into  any  office,  if  this  ceremony  means  any 
thing,  it  must  imply  a  communication  of  extraordina- 
ry gifts  from  the  bishop.  But  no  bishop  has  ever  yet 
made  it  appear,  that  he  possessed  any  such  gifts 
himself.  How  then  can  he  communicate  them  to 
others?* 

*  The  ceremony  of  confirmation  is  taken,  without  much  altera- 
tion, from  the  church  of  Rome.  It  is  there  required  to  be  per- 
formed by  a  bishop,  and  is  said  to  confer  the  gift  of  the  holy 
spirit,  and  strengthen  the  grace,  which  was  received  at  baptism. 
The  bishop  "places  his  hands  on  the  persons,  whom  he  is  about  to 


64f 

Similar  remarks  may  be  made  on  the  ordination 
service  of  tlie  episcopal  church.  It  implies  a  power 
in  the  bishop  of  conferring  the  holy  spirit.  In  one 
part  of  the  service  the  bishop  says,  ^'corae  Holy 
Ghost,  our  souls  inspire,"  and  when  he  has  laid  his 
hands  on  the  head  of  the  person  to  be  ordained  a 
priest,  he  says,  ^'receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office, 
and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  church  of  God,  now  com- 
mitted unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands; — 
whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven:  and 
whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained  " 

This  is  going  many  steps  farther,  than  in  the  cere- 
mony of  confirmation.  The  bishop  not  only  pretends 
to  communicate  the  holy  spirit,  but  also  the  power  of 
forgiving  sins.     '*Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive  they 

confirm,  and  invokes  the  holy  spirit  to  descend  upon  them  with  its 
gifts."  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  omitted  the  "holy 
chrism,"  which  the  catholies  think  a  very  important  part  of  the 
ceremony.  This  is  a  mixture  of  oil  and  balm,  with  which  the 
bishop  makes  a  cross  on  the  forehead  of  the  person  confirmed,  and 
is  intended  "to  show,  that  no  one  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  Christ." 
Catechisme  de  Bossuet,  Oeuv.  Tom.  vi.  p.  40;  et  Exposition  de  la 
Doctrine  de  L'EjjIise  Catholi(|ue,  Oeuv.  Tom.  xviii.  p.  104. 

The  sign  of  the  cross  was  at  first  adopted  by  the  English 
church,  according  to  Burnet,  in  the  "ceremony  of  confirmation, 
and  in  the  consecration  of  the  sacramental  elements,"  but  it  was 
afterwards  suppressed;  "Nor  can  I  devise,"  says  Bossuet,  "why  it 
was  retained  only  in  baptism."  Hist,  des  Var.  liv.  vii.  §  90. 

In  speaking  of  this  ceremony.  Cave  observes,  it  was  "usually 
performed  with  unction,  the  person  confirmed  being  anointed  by 
the  bishop,  or  in  his  absence  by  an  inferior  minister.''^  Cave's 
Primit.  Christianity,  chap.x.  p.  208,  seventh  edition,  London,  1714. 

From  this  account  it  appears,  that  confirmation  was  sometimes 
performed  in  ancient  times  by  the  inferior  clergy,  and  with  unc- 
tion, neither  of  which  is  at  present  allowed  in  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church. 


65 

are  forgiven."  Can  there  be  a  hi2;her  stretch  ot*  hu- 
man presumption?  It  is  assuming  the  character  and 
autliority  of  our  Saviour.  He  empowered  his  apos- 
tles to  fi)rgive  sins.  Do  bishops,  indeed,  think  them- 
selves, in  their  otficial  capacity,  not  only  equal  to  the 
apostles,  but  to  the  Saviour  of  the  world?  Where  will 
this  end?  Every  minister  of  the  episcopal  church, 
who  believes  there  is  any  meaning  in  the  forms 
of  ordination,  must  think  he  possesses  the  power  of 
forgiving  sins.  No  matter  what  his  character  may  be, 
he  possesses  this  power  by  virtue  of  his  office.  This 
is  expressly  acknowledged  by  Nelson,  in  his  Chap- 
ter on  the  Festival  of  Whitsunday.  "Though  all 
men,"  says  he,  "that  are  in  holy  offices  ought  to  lead 
holy  lives,  yet  a  failure  in  duty  is  not  a  forfeiture  of 
authority.^'*  What  doctrine  could  more  effectually 
promote  a  spirit  of  pride  and  presumption  in  the  min- 
ister, and  immorality  in  the  people?  The  wicked 
man  has  only  to  resort  to  his  minister  to  soothe  the 
achings  of  a  guilty  conscience,  and  receive  the  as- 
surance of  divine  forgiveness.  It  is  well,  that  people 
of  the  present  day  have  too  much  good  sense,  and  too 
little  credulity,  to  be  deceived  into  so  dangerous  an 
error;  hut  it  would  be  better  if  such  forms  as  are  cal- 
culated to  deceive,  and  have  an  immoral  tendency, 
were  abolished. 

In  the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  min- 
ister is  required,  when  he  visits  sick  persons,  to  ab- 
solve them  from  their  sins,  "if  they  humbly  and  hear- 
tily desire  it."  After  imploring  the  Lord  Jesus  to 
forgive  the  offences  of  the  sick  person,  the  minister 

*  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  New  York,  1817, 
p.  213. 


66 

is  directed  to  say,  "by  his  authority  committed  to  me, 
I  absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.''  This 
form  of  absolution  was  omitted  by  the  American 
convention.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  tell  the  reason;  for 
if  a  bishop  can  empower  a  minister  to  forgive  sins, 
the  same  minister  can  certainly  exercise  this  power 
for  the  benefit  of  sick  persons,  as  well  as  others. 

All  that  part  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
which  relates  to  baptism,  confirmation,  ordination, 
consecration,  and  visiting  the  sick,  carries  with  it  the 
supposiiion,  that  bishops  have  the  power  of  commu- 
nicating the  holy  spirit,  and  ministers  of  forgiving 
sins,  which  few  persons  of  the  present  day,  who  read 
the  scriptures,  consult  their  understandings,  or  re- 
spect the  principles  of  common  sense,  will  be  ready 
to  allow. 

I  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  these  topics,  as  they 
have  an  intimate  connexion  with  the  subject  of  the 
preceding  letter.  The  unscriptural  parts  of  these  ce- 
remonies have  evidently  grown  out  of  the  notion  of 
the  apostolical  character  «»f  the  ministry.  They  af- 
ford a  comment  on  that  doctrine,  which  is  well  worthy 
of  notice.  As  the  ministers  descended  from  the  apos- 
tles, it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  they  possess  the  same 
qualifications;  and  the  rules  of  their  oflBce  seem  to 
have  been  formed  on  this  supposition.  When  it  is 
recollected  by  what  a  precarious  tenure  the  episcopal 
clergy  hold  their  claims  to  the  apostolical  dignity,  it 
will  be  seen  how  singularly  inappropriate  and  pre- 
suming are  many  parts  of  the  ceremonies,  which  have 
just  been  considered.  That  such  errors  should  have 
crept  into  the  church  in  the  days  of  ignorance  and 


67 

darkness  is  not  so  wonderful;  but  that  men  should 
still  be  found  in  an  enlightened  and  free  community, 
who  defend  and  cling  to  them,  is  not  less  unaccount- 
able than  surprising. 

Your  remarks  on  the  expediencjf  and  utility  of 
forms  of  prayer  are  not  without  weight.  If  we  ever 
give  utterance  to  our  feelings  in  chaste,  appropriate, 
and  solemn  language,  it  should  be  in  our  addresses  to 
the  Deity.  If  we  ever  suppress  the  vain  ambition  of 
using  lofty  phrases,  high  sounding  epithets,  and  an 
unnecessary  abundance  of  words,  it  should  be  then. 
We  cannot  study  too  much  to  make  our  language 
simple,  plain,  forcible,  and  direct.  In  those  reli- 
gious exercises,  in  which  large  numbers  unite,  and 
where  the  prayers  are  intended  to  express  the  wants, 
and  petitions  of  the  whole,  there  can  certainly  be  no 
impropriety  in  using  a  preconceived  form,  composed 
in  such  general  terms,  as  to  be  adapted  to  a  promis- 
cuous assembly.  No  prayer  in  a  public  assembly  is 
appropriate,  unless  every  individual  present  can  unite 
in  every  part.  It  may  sometimes  happen,  that  the 
feelings  of  the  speaker,  and  his  want  of  aptness  in  ar- 
ranging and  combining  his  thoughts,  may  lead  him  into 
irrelevant  expressions,  and  such  as  are  not  adapted  to 
the  occasion.  This  is  the  only  inconvenience,  that 
can  arise  from  extemporaneous  prayers;  and,  to  pre- 
vent this,  it  may  be  expedient  sometimes  to  have  stu- 
died forms. 

It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  forms  in 
religion  are  useful,  as  far  as  they  promote  a  virtuous 
conduct,  and  vital  godliness;  but  beyond  this  they  are 
injurious.  It  is  rightful  and  good  to  have  order  and 
system  in  our  religious  institutions  and  services.    But 


68 

we  must  take  care  not  to  neglect  the  reality  for  the 
form,  the  substance  for  the  shadow.  There  is  dan- 
ger, that  by  treading  in  tlie  same  steps  from  day  to 
day,  we  shall  at  length  persuade  ourselves,  that  we 
walk  in  the  only  true  path.  We  must  be  careful  not 
to  let  the  feeling  grow  u|)on  us,  that  when  we  perform 
a  ceremony,  we  necessarily  do  a  religious  act. 

Reading  a  prayer  is  not  always  praying,  any  more 
than  the  simple  act  of  spending  two  hours  in  a  church 
is  religious  worship.  If  the  soul  be  not  drawn  out  to 
God,  and  impressed  with  a  consciousness  of  his  pre- 
sence; if  the  heart  and  aifections  be  not  warm  with  a 
lively  sense  of  his  goodness;  if  all  the  faculties  be  not 
humbled  with  a  feeling  of  reverence  and  submission, 
there  is  no  devotion,  however  much  ceremony  there 
may  be  in  standing  and  sitting,  repeating  forms,  read- 
ing, or  chanting.  And  the  sincere,  humble,  penitent 
soul,  can  offer  up  praise  and  thanksgiving  to  Grod,  ac- 
knowledge his  dominion,  implore  his  mercy,  and 
render  him  an  acceptable  service  at  all  times,  and  in 
all  places,  in  such  terras,  as  the  overflowings  of  a  de- 
votional spirit  may  dictate.  The  scriptures  have  not 
informed  us  what  precise  acts  shall  be  considered 
worship.  They  have  assured  us,  that  sincere  wor- 
ship must  spring  from  the  heart,  but  they  have  pre- 
scribed no  particular  mode  in  which  we  shall  express 
our  emotions  of  gratitude,  thanksgivings,  praise,  de- 
pendence, and  submission.  This  is  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  every  christian.  It  is  only  demanded  of 
us,  that  we  be   sincere. 

Is  it  not  a  principal  object  of  prayer  to  express  de- 
votional feelings?  And  what  is  devotion  without  fer- 
vour, earnestness,  and  an  impressive  sense  of  the  pre- 


69 

sence  and  inspection  of  God?  Is  it  not  much  better, 
that  we  should  have  the  lif*^,  the  spirit  of  prayer,  than 
the  form?  God  looks  into  the  heart,  and  regards  the 
sentiments  we  cherish  tliere,  and  not  the  modes  we 
use  in  disclosing  them.  These  modes  should  be  such, 
as  to  enable  us  to  retain  the  most  lively  emotions  of  a 
pious  and  holy  temper,  at  the  same  time  we  use  our 
best  endeavours  to  olTer  up  our  devotions  in  appro- 
priate and  expressive  language.  To  speak  words 
without  feeling  tlieir  full  force,  or  being  warmed  by 
the  sentiments  they  convey,  is  not  devotion.  Prayers 
repeated  every  sabbath  from  year  to  year  in  the  same 
church,  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  lose  much  of  their 
interest.  Habit  will  diminish  the  irksomeness  of  re- 
petition, but  it  is  to  be  feared,  the  words  will  too  often 
pass  through  the  mind,  while  the  thoughts  are  wan- 
dering. 

There  is  another  objection,  which  lies  heavily 
against  most  forms  of  prayer,  and  from  which  the  Li- 
turgy of  the  church,  with  all  its  acknowledged  excel- 
lencies in  many  respects,  is  by  no  means  free.  No 
address  should  ever  be  publicly  made  to  the  Deity, 
in  which  every  christian,  of  every  denomination,  can- 
not cordially  and  devoutly  join.  It  is  not  an  occasion 
which  should  be  employed  to  introduce  dogmatical 
theology,  or  abstruse  metaphysical  distinctions.  All 
the  worshippers  of  God  should  assemble  before  him, 
"in  the  unity  of  the  spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace.'' 
Names  should  be  done  away,  and  the  distinguishing 
tenets  of  sects  should  be  forgotten.  Is  this  true  of  all  the 
prayers  of  the  episcopal  church,  and  especially  of  the 
Litany?  Are  there  not  many  conscientious  and  devout 
christians,  whose  minds  revolt  at  the  kind  of  worship 
10 


70 

tbeie  rendered,  when  tliey  recollect  the  command  of 
our  Saviour,  "thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve?"  This  objection, 
which  arises  from  the  habit  of  conforming  prayers  to 
the  views  of  a  sect,  bears  equally  strong  against 
extemporaneous  prayers,  which  partake  of  this 
character.  An  important  difference  is,  that  when 
forms  become  established,  and  are  often  repeated  in 
churches,  they  are  likely  to  produce  more  extensive 
injury  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  piety. 

When  you  say,  that  "with  resj)ect  to  social  wor- 
ship of  every  description,  the  doctrine  and  practice  of 
the  church  universal  are  decidedly  in  favour  of  pre- 
conceived forms,''  and  speak  of  the  ''lawfulness  of 
forms  being  established  by  divine  appointmenty^^  I 
hardly  know  how  to  understand  you.  If,  by  the 
"church  universal,"  you  mean  all  the  churches  of 
Christ,  your  statement  is  of  course  incorrect,  because 
a  great  portion  of  them  do  not  use  set  forms.  If  you 
mean  those  churches  only,  which  hold  to  three  orders 
in  the  ministry,  I  know  not  why  you  call  them  the 
"church  universal."  Or  is  it  to  be  understood,  that 
you  consider  all  those  denominations  of  christians, 
who  do  not  adopt  this  mode  of  government,  as  being 
without  the  pale  of  the  church? 

To  prove  forms  of  prayer  to  have  been  "establish- 
ed by  divine  appointment,"  you  quote  the  general 
practice  of  singing  psalms  and  hymns  in  churches, 
and  say,  "the  Book  of  Psalms,  was  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  the  use  of  the  congregration."  This 
may  be  true,  but  it  affords  no  proof  in  regard  to  forms 
of  prayers.  Did  our  Saviour  use  a  form  in  the  gar- 
den of  Gethsemane,  or  the  apostles  in  their  public  or 


71 

private  devotions?  There  is  no  evidence  of  such  a 
fact;  and  if  forms  of  prayer  are  to  be  defended  on  any 
ground,  it  must  be  that  of  utility  and  expediencij,  and 
not  of  divine  autliority.  While  we  pray  from  the 
heart,  and  lift  up  our  souls  to  God  in  spirit  and  truth, 
our  prayers  will  be  heard,  in  whatever  words  they 
be  expressed,  or  in  whatever  forms  they  may  be  of- 
fered, 

I  cannot  forbear  saying  a  word  on  another  topic, 
which  you  connect  with  the  part  of  your  discourse, 
which  I  am  now  considering.  I  mean  the  privilege 
of  women  to  associate  for  religious  exercises.  In 
speaking  of  this  subject,  you  were  certainly  betrayed 
into  a  warmth,  which  is  not  quite  in  accordance  with 
the  mild  and  equable  spirit  discoverable  in  almost 
every  other  part  of  your  sermon. 

These  are  your  words.  "My  brethren,  when  I  con- 
sider that  our  God  and  Saviour  has  appointed  a  min- 
istry especially  to  serve  in  religious  assemblies;  that 
this  ministry  exists  in  every  church  in  this  city: — 
when  I  mark  the  retiring,  the  humble,  the  docile 
traits  of  character,  which  the  sacred  writings  attribute 
to  christian  women;  when  I  read  the  words  of  St. 
Paul  to  a  church  he  had  himself  planted,  "let  your  wo- 
men keep  silence  in  churches,  for  it  is  not  permitted 
unto  them  to  speak,  for  it  is  a  shame  for  women  to 
speak  in  the  church;' — when  I  consider  these,  and 
other  express  declarations  to  the  same  effect,  I  cannot 
hesitate  about  the  inexpediency  of  those  meetings,  in 
which  females  meet  together,  not  to  use  the  authoriz- 
ed frayers  of  the  church,  but  publicly  to  utter  their 
own  extempore  effusions.  The  spirit  of  the  church 
institutions,  prescribing  and  providing  a  preronceived 


72 

form,  frowns  upon  tJutt/.     The  language  of  St.  Paul 
seems  explicitly  to  discountenance  them."  p.  3i. 

This  language  yon  must  allow  is  very  warm.  Sup- 
posing there  were  reasons  why  the  apostle  should 
write  as  he  did,  respecting  the  Corinthian  women; 
does  it  follow  that  the  same  reasons  exist  at  the  pre 
sent  day,  and  in  a  totirlly  difierent  state  of  society? 
Besides,  if  women  were  never  to  speak  in  religious 
assemhlies,  even  in  those  times,  why  did  St.  Paul,  in 
the  same  epistle  from  which  you  have  quoted  the 
ahove  text,  intimate  that  *'they  should  not  pray  or 
prophecy  with  their  heads  uncovered."  This  text  is 
a  proof,  tliat  women  were  not  excluded  from  speak- 
ing. 

Mr.  T  ocke  explains  this  subject  much  more  favour 
ably  and  consistently,  than  the  learned  authors  whom 
you  have  quoted.*  He  considers  the  directions  of 
the  apostle  to  have  reference  to  order  in  public  assem- 
blies. -To  prevent  disturbance  and  confusion,  the 
women  were  required  to  yield  precedence  to  the  men, 
and  not  to  speak  while  they  were  speaking.  Some 
disorders,  it  would  seem,  had  arisen  by  not  having 
this  point  settled.  This  construction  is  rendered  in 
the  highest  degree  probable,  by  the  manner  in  which 
the  apostle  speaks  in  the  context.  He  first  says,  ^'God 
is  not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of  peace,"  and  after 
giving  tlie  directions  about  women's  speaking,  he 
concludes,  ^'let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in 
order."  1  Cor.  xiv.  40.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
the  apostle  did  not  intend  to  prohibit  women  from 
taking  an  active  p;u't  in  religious  exercises  on  proper 
occasions.     And  even  if  the  contrary  Avere  proved,  it 

*  See  Locke's  Notes  on  1  Cor.  c.  xi.v.  5. 


73 

would  not  follow  from  any  just  principles  of  reason- 
ing, t.  at  the  same  pi'ohiljilion  Avas  to  be  extended  to 
women  of  all  ages  of  !he  world. 

Where  tiiere  are  stated  periods  of  public  worship, 
and  a  regular  ministry,  1  allow  it  would  be  more 
likely  to  promote  the  good  order  of  society,  and  the 
happiness  of  individuals,  if  all  christians  could  i.hink 
they  have  done  their  duty,  when  they  have  punctually 
and  conscientiously  conformed  to  established  usages, 
than  it  would  to  neglect  the  necessary  and  important 
avocations  of  life  to  assemble  at  irregular  times  for  reli- 
gious worship.  Yet  our  religion  is  a  religion  of  free- 
dom. All  persons  have  a  right  to  worship  God  in 
such  a  way,  and  at  such  times  as  their  feelings  and 
consciences  dictate.  If  we  have  a  natural  right,  this  is 
one.  It  does  not  depend  on  any  compact,  civil  obli- 
gations, or  the  sanction  of  laws.  Women  have  their 
peculiar  sphere,  as  well  as  men,  in  which  custom  and 
the  rules  of  society  have  placed  them;  but  these  do  not 
interfere  with  their  religious  privileges.  These  have 
no  power,  and  ought  to  have  none,  to  control  the  con- 
science, or  restrain  devotion.  1  would  not  have  women 
officiate  publicly  in  churches,  because  it  would  be  vio- 
lating custom  and  introducing  confusion,  and  not  be- 
cause it  would  be  contrary  to  any  laws  of  nature  or  re- 
lii;ion.  In  this  respect  the  sexes  are  on  an  equality. 
Whatever  is  a  natural  or  religious  rigiit  to  one,  is  so 
to  the  other.  It  is  hard  indeed,  if  women  cannot  be 
allowed  the  privilege  of  exercising  this  right,  and  as- 
sembling together  when  they  choose  in  a  becomings 
orderly,  and  peaceable  manner,  to  oHer  up  their  ch.'vo- 
tions,  and  encourage  one  another  in  their  christian 
course,  by  a  rational  interchange  of  pious  sentiments, 


74 

and  sincere  endeavours  to  serve  God.  Why  should 
they  be  deprived  of  tlie  advantages  and  delights  of 
social  worship?  No  one  will  deny,  that  they  are  ca- 
pable of  feeling  and  estimating  these  advantages,  and 
even  in  a  much  higher  degree,  than  the  other  sex. 

You  censure  them  for  not  using  "the  authorized 
prayers  of  the  church"  on  such  occasions.  But  is  this 
reasonable?  How  many  are  there  who  think  it  their 
duty  not  to  use  forms  of  prayer?  How  many,  to  whose 
spiritual  condition  none  of  the  church  prayers  are 
applicable?  Would  you  have  such  persons  violate 
what  they  consider  their  duty,  because  the  "spirit  of 
the  church  institutions /rozrws  wpon  them,'^^  and  forego 
the  propriety,  as  well  as  comfort,  of  addressing  their 
Maker  in  the  genuine  language  of  tlie  heart?  And  is 
not  a  woman  as  capable  of  expressing  this  language, 
as  a  man? 

Jn  making  these  remarks,  I  am  very  far  from  wish- 
ing to  defend  any  irregularities  or  improprieties  in 
the  mode  of  religious  worship.  I  only  wish  to  state, 
that  "where  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liherty;" 
that  it  is  the  sincere,  and  not  the  formal  worshipper, 
with  whom  God  is  pleased;  and  that  no  individual  of 
eitlier  sex,  can  justly  be  restrained  from  a  free  and 
rational  exercise  of  every  privilege,  which  is  derived 
from  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  religion. 

I  hope  you  will  pardon  me  for  introducing  here  a 
short  extract  from  a  sermon  of  one  of  the  most  elo- 
quent preachers,  enlightened  men,  and  pious  chris- 
tians, whom  this  or  any  other  age  has  known.  The 
subject  of  the  discourse  is,  "The  influence  of  the  gos- 
pel on  the  cliaracter  and  condition  of  the  female  sex.'^ 
The  passage,  which  I  am  about  to  select,  has  refer- 


7.5 

euce  to  the  tendency  of  the  female  mind  to  religious 
sensibility,  and  its  proneness  to  receive  religious  im- 
pressions. After  speaking  of  the  tenderness  with 
which  our  Saviour  always  treated  women,  and  of 
their  devotedness  to  him,  even  after  he  had  been  for- 
saken by  his  disciples  and  all  his  friends — of  their  fol- 
lowing him  to  the  cross  and  watching  at  his  sepul- 
chre— the  preacher  addresses  the  female  part  of  his 
audience  in  the  following  words. 

"It  is  infinitely  honourable  to  your  character,  that 
you  ever  feel  a  secret  sympathy  with  a  religion, 
which  unlocks  all  the  sources  of  benevolent  affection, 
which  smiles  on  every  exercise  of  compassion,  and 
every  act  of  kindness.  We  may  say  too,  perhaps, 
that  your  hearts,  not  hardened  by  the  possession  of 
power,  the  pains  of  avarice,  or  the  emulations  of  public 
life,  are  more  alive  to  the  accents  of  pardon  by  Jesus 
Christ,  more  awake  to  the  glories  of  the  invisible 
world.  The  gospel  came  to  throw  a  charm  over  do- 
mestic life;  and,  in  retirement,  the  first  objects  which 
it  found,  were  mothers  and  their  children.  It  came 
to  bind  up  the  broken  hearted;  and  for  that  office  wo- 
man was  always  best  prepared.  It  came  to  heal  the 
sick;  and  woman  was  already  waiting  at  their  couches. 
It  came  to  open  the  gates  of  life  on  the  languid  eye 
of  the  dying  penitent,  and  woman  was  every  where 
to  be  seen,  softly  tending  at  the  pillow,  and  closing 
the  eyes  of  the  departing. 

"With  this  superior  susceptibility  of  religious  im- 
pression, and  aptitude  to  the  practical  duties  of  the 
gospel,  I  know,  there  are  evils  associated,  against 
which  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  guard.  Sensibility 
degenerates  into  weakness;  and  religious  awe  into  su- 


76 

perstition,  in  your  sex,  oftener,  perhaps,  than  in  ours; 
yet,  with  all  these  dangers  and  inconveniences,  I  be- 
lievCj  that  if  Christianity  should  be  compelled  to  flee 
from  the  mansions  of  the  great,  the  academies  of  the 
philosophers,  the  halls  of  the  legislators,  or  the  throng 
of  busy  men,  we  should  find  her  last  and  purest  re- 
treat with  woman  at  the  fireside;  her  last  altar  would 
be  the  female  heart;  her  last  audience  would  be  the 
children  gathered  round  the  knees  of  a  mother;  her 
sacrifice,  the  secret  prayer  escaping  in  silence  from 
her  lips,  and  heard,  perhaps,  only  at  the  throne  of 
God.'-* 

I  will  conclude  this  letter  with  one  or  two  observa- 
tions on  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  episcopal 
church.  In  Nelson's  book  on  this  subject,  it  is  said, 
"•^these  are  of  ecclesiastical  institution,  and  conson- 
ant to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church. "|  In  the 
same  book  are  enumerated,  besides  the  sabbath, 
forty-seven  days  of  public  worship,  to  which  are  at- 
tached the  names  of  saints,  angels,  and  other  titles  of 
no  very  obvious  import. 

Let  me  ask  what  authority  there  is  in  the  Bible  for 
commemorating  saints  and  angels,  and  especially 
for  incorporating  forms  of  such  a  commemoration  into 
a  church  service,  and  connecting  them  with  the  wor- 
ship of  God?  You  can  find  neither  precept  nor  ex- 
ample in  the  word  of  God,  in  which  the  vestige  of 
such  a  practice  appears.  What  is  meant  by  its  being 
an  ^'ecclesiastical  institution?"  It  originated  in  the 
strong  inclination  of  the  Gentile  converts  to  adopt  the 

*  Buckniinster's  Sermons,  first  edition,  p.  388. 
t  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  63. 


*t7 

forms  of  christian  worship  to  the  rites  aiul  ceremb*' 
nies,  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  when  hea- 
thens. Saints  and  martyrs  were  substituted  for  hea» 
then  gods.  This  has  been  fully  shown  by  Caasobon, 
Whiston,  and  especially  Mr.  Mede^  in  his  "Aposta- 
cy  of  the  Latter  Times.^'  He  cites  a  striking  pas- 
sage from  Theodoret.  "Our  Lord  God  hath  brought 
his  dead  (martyrs)  into  the  room  and  place  of  your 
gods,  whom  he  hath  sent  oft',  and  given  their  honour 
to  his  martyrs.  For  instead  of  the  feasts  of  Jupiter 
and  Bacchus,  are  now  celebrated  the  festivals  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  and  Thomas,  and  Sergius,  and  other 
holy  martyrs."* 

Since  this  is  the  origin  of  these  festivals,  it  would 
seem  the  duty  of  the  church  rather  to  abolish,  than 
perpetuate  them.  There  is  no  evidence  in  history 
of  any  saints'  days  being  observed,  till  after  the  se- 
cond century;  and  yet  we  are  told  "this  institution  is 
consonant  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church^ 
Such  broad  assertions  without  proof  will  satisfy  those, 
and  those  only,  who  think  credulity  a  christian  virtue; 
free  inquiry,  a  crime;  and  submission  to  the  authority 
of  the  church,  a  compliance  with  a  divine  command. f 

I  have  thus  pointed  out  some  of  the  particulars  iu 
the  forms  of  the  episcopal  church,  which  distinguish 

*  See  Peirce's  Vindication,  Part  Third,  c.  xi. 

t  The  celebration  of  saints'  days  is  taken  entirely  from  the 
church  of  Rome.  In  speaking  of  Burnet's  account  of  the  views 
of  the  church  of  England  on  this  subject  Bossuet  observes,  "he 
every  where,  and  in  all  things,  justifies  us;  and  they,  who  object 
to  us  that  we  follow  the  commandments  of  men,  may  bring  th^ 
same  objection  against  the  English  church.  This  church  will 
vindicate  us.'*  Hist.des  Van  liv.  vii.  §  91. 
11 


78 

it  from  most  other  Protestant  churches,  and  some  of 
which  I  do  not  find  warranted  in  scripture.  It  would 
have  been  gratifying  to  see  these  explained  and  vin- 
dicated in  your  discourse.  It  will  be  a  difficult  thing 
for  any  of  your  readers  to  tell  why  they  are  "Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Churchmen/'  till  they  can  see  remov- 
ed the  formidable  objections,  which  rest  against  these 
parts  of  the  church  service,  and  be  convinced  from 
clear  evidence,  that  the  whole  is  built  on  the  simple 
truths  of  the  gospel. 


iLns^isiB  aaiic 


Reverend  and  dear  sir, 

1  PROPOSE  next  to  consider  that  part  of  the 
twentieth  article,  which  asserts,  that  ^*the  church  hath 
authority  in  controversies  of  faith.''  This  you  pass 
over  entirely;  yet,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  there  is  no 
one  thing  in  which  the  episcopal  church  differs  more 
essentially  from  Protestant  churches  in  general.  Few 
churches,  I  believe,  assume,  as  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine, the  right  and  authority  of  deciding  in  matters 
of  faith. 

Some  of  your  readers,  E  am  sure,  would  have 
thanked  you,  if  you  had  have  told  them,  whence  the 
church  derives  this  authority.  To  the  present  episco- 
pal church  it  must  have  been  communicated  by  the 
^^archbishops  and  bishops  of  both  provinces,  and  the 
whole  clergy,"  assembled  in  convocation  in  the 
reign  of  king  Edward  the  Sixth.  But  from  whom 
did  they  receive  this  unusual  power?  From  the  king 
and  parliament  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  church  of 
Home  on  the  other.  What  authority  had  the  king 
and  parliament  over  the  faith,  and  conscieuce,  and 
spiritual  concerns  of  men?    None  at  all.     What  au- 


80 

thority  had  the  church  of  Rome?  One  of  the  articles 
framed  by  this  same  "convocaiion"  declares,  *'the 
church  of  Rome  hath  erred,  not  only  in  her  living  and 
manner  of  ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters  of  faith.'* 
You  would  not  be  willing  to  allow,  that  any  authority 
to  decide  in  controversies  of  faith  could  be  derived 
from  a  church,  which  had  already  df^parted  from  the 
faith,  and  which  you  say,  in  your  discourse,  had 
adopted  '^'ceremonies  and  doctrines  neither  taught  in 
scripture,  nor  consistent  with  its  purity. '^  Although 
you  have  attempted  to  prove,  that  the  true  order  of 
the  ministry  descended  through  this  church,  which 
had  so  far  receded  from  the  scriptures,  you  will 
scarcely  speak  with  equal  confidence  concerning  rules 
of  faith.  The  episcopal  church  has  derived  no  au- 
thority,  then,  either  from  kings,  parliaments,  or  any 
civil  institutions,  or  from  any  other  church. 

Let  us  go  to  the  scriptures.  Where  has  our  Sa- 
viour, or  his  apostles,  given  authority  to  any  man,  or 
any  number  of  men,  to  prescribe  articles  of  belief,  and 
judge  men  for  their  opinions?  Why  should  it  have 
been  a  command  of  our  Lord  to  "search  the  scrip- 
tures," to  "hear  and  understand,"  if  others  are  to 
search  and  understand  for  us?  If  he  intended  the  task 
of  examining,  thinking,  deciding,  and  judging,  should 
be  confined  to  a  few  favoured  persons,  who  should 
fix  on  themselves  the  name  of  the  church,  why  has  he 
given  no  intimations  of  such  an  intention?  This  would 
have  secured  much  peace  and  comfort  to  many  anx- 
ious inquirers,  who  have  thought  it  their  duty  to  search 
with  prayerful  earnestness  for  the  true  meaning  of  the 
scriptures,  and  to  adopt  from  knowledge  and  convic- 
tion the  principles  of  their  faith. 


81 

All  doubts  and  anxieties  on  this  subject  might  thus 
be  easily  removed;  for  as  soon  as  it  were  believed,  that 
the  church  has  authority  to  fix  the  true  meaning  of 
scripture,  nothing  would  remain  but  to  "believe  as  the 
church  believes."  Instead  of  searching  the  scrip- 
tures, it  would  only  be  necessary  to  search  the  arti- 
cles and  creeds.  The  Bible  might  be  laid  aside;  for 
why  should  it  be  read,  if  all  its  important  truths  can 
be  found  in  a  much  smaller  compass? 

But  our  Saviour  has  given  no  authority  to  any  man, 
or  to  any  church,  to  decide  on  the  meaning  of  scrip- 
ture, and  impose  their  decisions  on  the  conscience  and 
understanding  of  others.  Wherever  such  an  author, 
ity  is  set  up,  it  is  assumed;  and  wherever  it  attempts 
to  enforce  its  decrees,  or  influence,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  the  opinions  of  others,  it  makes  an  un- 
warrantable encroachment  on  the  freedom  of  chris- 
tians. For  what  reason  did  our  Saviour,  with  great 
earnestness,  ask  the  question,  "why  even  of  your- 
selves judge  ye  not  what  is  right,"  if  we  are  to  re- 
sign the  exercise  of  our  judgment,  and  rely  on  the 
authority  of  the  church? 

I  know  it  has  been  maintained  by  many  episcopa- 
lians, who  are  unwilling  to  admit  the  construction, 
which  this  article  naturally  bears,  that  it  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  it  is  written.  They  would  not  have  it 
mean  any  thing,  except  when  compared  with  another 
part  of  the  same  article,  which  says,  "it  is  not  lawful 
for  the  church  to  ordain  any  thing,  that  is  contrary  to 
God's  word  written." 

From  this  it  is  argued,  that  although  the  church 
has  authority  in  controversies  of  faith,  yet  it  cannot 
impose  any   thing,  which  is  not  contained  in  the 


83 

scriptures.  But  it  is  important  to  inquire,  who  is  to 
be  the  judge  in  this  case?  The  church  has  been  care- 
ful to  settle  this  point.  What  is  it  to  ^^have  authority 
in  controversies  of  faith,"  but  to  have  authority  to  de- 
termine what  is  the  true  faith?  The  amount  of  the 
whole,  then,  is  this; — the  church  is  not  to  impose  any 
articles  of  faith,  which  are  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God;  but  the  church  is  to  determine  what  is,  and  what 
is  not,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  On  any  occa- 
sion of  controversy,  there  can  be  only  two  parties,  of 
which  the  church  is  one.  They  both  appeal  to  the 
scriptures,  and  the  chun^h  assumes  the  authority  of 
deciding  what  the  scriptures  mean;  and  thus  becomes 
a  judge  in  its  own  cause. 

If  this  were  not  obvious  from  the  nature  of  the 
thing,  it  is  abundantly  proved  by  direct  evidence  con- 
tained in  the  articles  and  canons  of  the  church.  In 
the  eighth  article  the  church  affirms,  that  "the  J^icene 
creed,  and  that  which  is  commonly  called  the  ajpos- 
tles^  creed,  ought  thoroughly  to  be  received  and  be- 
lieved; for  they  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  war- 
rants of  holy  scripture,^'  Now  there  are  some  things 
in  one  of  these  creeds  especially,  which,  so  far  from 
being  proved  by  ^^certain  warrants  of  scripture," 
many  christians  think  are  directly  contrary  to  scrip- 
ture, and  subversive  of  its  simplest  and  purest  doc- 
trines. Yet  the  church  has  passed  its  judgment, 
and  by  this  all  its  members  must  abide. 

If  you  will  examine  the  decisions  of  the  church  in 
all  controversies  of  faith,  both  with  the  Catholics 
and  Puritans,  1  believe  you  will  find  it  has  always 
enforced  the  doctrines  of  its  articles  and  creeds,  not- 
withstanding the  saving  clause  in  the  twentieth  arti- 


83 

clCf  that  ^^it  is  not  lawful  to  ordain  any  thing  contra- 
ry to  Grod's  word  written." 

The  spirit  of  this  doctrine,  respecting  authority  in 
matters  of  faith,  is  clearly  illustrated  in  the  canons  of 
the  English  church.  The  candidate  for  ordination, 
among  other  things,  is  required  to  subscribe  to  the 
following  words,  namely,  "that  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  of  ordering  of  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons, containeth  in  it  nothing  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God;  and  that  he  acknowledgeth  all  and  every  the 
articles  therein  contained,  to  be  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  GodJ^  After  this  acknowledgment,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  inquire  what  will  be  his  deci- 
sions respecting  the  import  of  the  word  of  God  in  any 
controversies  of  faith. 

The  American  form  differs  a  little  from  this  in 
words,  but  not  in  substance.  By  the  tenth  article  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  the  candidate  makes  the 
following  engagement;  ^'I  do  solemnly  engage  to  con- 
form to  the  doctrines  and  worship  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States.'' 

From  these  terms  of  subscription,  it  appears,  that 
ministers  at  the  time  of  ordination,  not  only  profess  a 
present  belief  in  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  but  "so- 
lemnly engage  to  conforni"^  to  these  doctrines.  In 
case  of  any  controversy  on  these  subjects,  therefore, 
they  must  either  violate  their  solemn  engagement,  or 
decide  in  favour  of  the  standing  doctrines  of  the 
church,  whatever  may  be  the  actual  sense  of  scrip- 
ture. It  is  in  effect  making  the  articles  the  criterion, 
by  which  the  scriptures  are  to  be  explained. 

If  a  doubt  can  longer  remain,  as  to  what  is  meant 
by  the  church,  when  it  professes  to  have  autiiority 


84 

in  controversies  of  faith,  it  will  be  removed  by  recur^ 
ring  to  those  canons  of  the  English  church,  which  re- 
late to  excommunicalion.  According  to  the  fifth 
canon,  "Whosoever  shall  hereafter  aflfirm,  that  any 
of  the  nine  and  thirty  articles  agreed  upon— ^/br*  avoid- 
ing diversities  of  opinions,  and  for  the  establishing 
of  consent,  touching  true  religion,  are  in  any  sort  su- 
perstitious or  erroneous,  or  such  as  he  may  not  with 
a  good  conscience  subscribe  unto;  let  him  be  excom- 
municated ipso  facto." 

I  do  not  say,  that  the  American  church  is  so  severe 
in  its  denunciations  of  those,  who,  after  they  have 
joined  the  church,  may  be  so  unfortunate  as  to  change 
their  opinions  in  regard  to  some  of  the  articles;  yet  so 
far  as  relates  to  the  point  in  question,  there  is  no  dif- 
ference. This  is  evident  from  the  eighth  article,  and 
the  form  of  subscription  above  quoted;  and  also  from 
what  is  stated  in  another  place,  namely,  that  in  the 
judgment  of  the  church,  "there  be  not  any  thing  in 
the  Liturgy  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  or  to  sound 
doctrine,  or  which  a  godly  man  may  not  with  a  good 
conscience  subscribe  unto.^^  It  is  not  necessary  to 
seek  any  further  to  know,  in  what  sense  the  church 
considers  itself  to  have  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith.* 

*  The  following  extracts  from  Daubnej's  Guide  to  the  Church, 
■will  serve  further  to  illustrate  this  subject.  Daubney's  work  is 
written  with  much  good  temper  and  apparent  candour,  and  I  be* 
lieve  is  of  high  authority  in  the  church.  It  is  among  those  books, 
Vhich  were  recommended  by  the  ''house  of  bishops  in  the  conven- 
tion of  1804,"  to  students  in  theology. 

The  author  says,  "Ever  since  the  era  of  the  reformation,  the 
church  of  England  has  been  considered  to  be  the  firmest  bulwark 


85 

^  excellent 
If  we  must  have  some  creed,  or  fixed  form     ^^rp. 

belief,  distinct  from  the  plain  letter  of  scripture^  , 
fore  we  can  have  a  regular  church,  it  is  worth  whi/ 
to  inquire  from  what  source  it  is  to  be  obtained.  It 
we  are  to  rely  on  authority,  how  are  we  to  determine 
what  shall  be  that  authority?  Shall  it  be  some  par- 
ticular person  in  whose  intelligence,  honesty,  and 
judgment  we  place  unlimited  confidence?  But  this 
person  depended  on  a  third,  and  this  third  on  a 
fourth.  Where  shall  we  stop?  Shall  we  go  back  to 
ecclesiastical  assemblies,  synods,  and  councils?  But 

•f  Protestantism.  So  far  as  the  dissenter  agrees  with  her  in  protest- 
ing against  the  errors  of  the  Romish  church,  so  far  he  may  be  said 
to  beat  unity  with  her;  but  when  that  right,  which  justifies  the  dis- 
sension, in  common  with  the  church  of  England,  in  separating 
from  a  corrupt  branch  of  the  christian  church,  is  extended  to  jus- 
tify his  separation  from  a  branch  of  the  church  confessedly  not  in 
the  same  state  of  corruption,  and  of  whose  members,  no  unlawful 
terms  of  communion  are  required;  and  to  authorize  his  setting  up 
a  church  of  his  own,  independent  of  episcopal  government, — the 
dissenter  quits  the  ground  of  Piotestanism,  and  places  himself 
upon  that  of  schism;  and  in  such  case  he  becomes  a  schismatic^ 
grafted  upon  a  Protestant."  p.  1 34. 

We  see  from  this  account,  in  what  estimation  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  holds  itself,  and  what  judgment  it  passes  on 
those,  who  dissent.  What  are  those  unfortunate  christians  to  do, 
who  find  many  corruptions  even  in  this  "branch  of  the  church,"  and 
many  "unlawful  terms  of  communion,"  with  which  they  cannot 
conscientiously  comply?  Are  they  to  put  conscience,  the  sense  of 
duty,  and  religious  principle,  out  of  the  question?  Or  shall  they 
retain  these,  and  run  the  fearful  hazard  of  being  branded  by  the 
church  with  the  charitable  name  of  schismatics. 

But  this  advocate  for  the  church  has  not  the  most  profound  re- 
spect for  the  freedom  of  conscience,  or  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment. He  tells  us,  that  "the  idea,  which  has  for  some  time  pre- 
vailed, that  christian  liberty  gives  every  man  a  right  to  worshij) 
13 


86 

these  all  differed  one  from  the  other.  One  revoked, 
altered,  or  annulled  what  another  had  decreed.  What 
articles  of  faith,  among  the  multitude  of  contradictory 
ones,  which  have  been  sent  out  under  the  authority  of 
great  names,  shall  we  adopt.*  Shall  we  take  a 
creed  of  the  third,  tenth,  or  eigLteentb  century? 

Until  this  point  shall  be  settled  by  some  fair  course 
of  reasoning,  had  we  not  best  be  contented  to  receive 
our  faith  from  the  Bibb?  Why  should  we  have  a 
greater  fondness  for  wandering  away  after  the  doc- 
trines and  speculations  of  men,  than  for  consulting 
and  confiding  in  the  words  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles?  What  more  d(»  we  want?  Can  we  go  to  a 
purer  source?  If  the  systems  of  faith,  which  men 
have  drawn  up,  contain  any  thing  more  or  less  than 
the  scriptures,  they  will  deceive  and  mislead  us;  if 
they  contain  precisely  what  the  scriptures  contain^ 
we  do  not  need  them. 

God  in  his  own  way,  appears  to  have  been  admitted  'without  suf- 
ficient examination^  p.  116.  And  again;  "we  do  not  scruple  to 
affirm,  that  every  man  is  not  qualified  to  form  a  judgment  for  him- 
self in  religious  matters."  p.  138. 

From  these  extracts  it  is  perceived,  that  the  ground,  which  this 
writer  takes,  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  views  given  above 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  in  regard  to  its  authority  in  matters 
of  faith.  If  he  is  to  be  considered  a  faithful  interpreter,  all  men 
who  separate  are  accounted  schismatics  in  the  estimation  of  the 
church;  they  are  incapable  of  judging  lor  themselves;  and  have  no 
right  to  worship  God  "in  their  own  way,"  whatever  may  be  the  dic- 
tates of  their  understanding,  or  conscience. 

*  In  the  second  part  of  King's  Constitutions  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  may  be  seen  no  kss  than  twelve  different  creeds,  which 
were  in  use  before  the  end  of  the  tliird  century. 


87 

Oil  this  subject,  Chilliagworth  has  some  excellent 
remarks  in  his  controversy  with  the  Catholics.  '<The 
Bible,  the  Bible  only,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants, 
I  see  plainly  and  with  my  own  eyes,  that  there  are 
popes  against  popes,  councils  against  councils,  some 
Fathers  against  others,  the  same  Fathers  against 
themselves,  a  consent  of  Fathers  of  one  age  against 
a  consent  of  Fathers  of  another  age,  the  church  of  one 
age  against  the  church  of  another  age.  In  a  word, 
there  is  no  suflBcient  certainty,  but  only  of  scripture, 
for  any  considering  man  to  build  upon.''*  Such  were 
the  sentiments  of  one  of  the  ablest  men  of  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  who,  although  he  did  not  believe  in 
the  divine  right  of  episcopacy,  was  a  powerful  de- 
fender of  the  Protestant  cause,  and  a  firm  supporter 
of  the  English  church. 

Why  we  should  choose  to  go  to  the  ancient  Fa- 
thers for  our  religious  opinions;  why  we  should  adopt 
the  decrees  of  factious  councils,  or  the  dogmas  of  the 
dark  ages,  while  we  have  the  treasures  of  divine 
truth  in  our  possession,  are  questions  not  easy  to  be 
answered. 

The  episcopal  church  in  the  United  States  thought 
it  necessary  to  have  only  two  creeds,  the  Apostles' 
and  the  Jiicene.  Why  the  convention  left  out  the 
Athanasian  creed  we  are  not  told.  In  regard  to  doc- 
trine it  differs  in  nothing  from  the  Nicene.  It  has, 
also,  generally  been  thouglit  to  contain  a  more  ex- 
plicit statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  as  held 
by  the  church,  than  is  any  where  else  to  be  found. 
The  three  uncharitable,  or  as  they  have  been  called, 

*  Chillingworth's  Religion  of  Protestants,  &c.  chap.  vi.  §  56. 


88 

"damnatory"  clauses,  might  have  been  omitted,  with- 
out injuring  it  as  a  summary  of  faith.  And  if  the 
doctrines  set  forth  in  these  two  last  mentioned  creeds, 
be  actually  the  vital  truths  of  scripture,  the  more 
clearly  they  are  stated,  and  the  more  strongly  they  are 
enforced,  the  better.* 

If  we  may  judge  from  the  journals  of  the  different 
American  conventions,  no  little  difficulty  was  expe- 
rienced in  settling  this  affair  of  the  creeds,  as  well  as 
in  altering  some  other  parts  of  the  Book  of  Common 

*As  the  Athanasian  creed  is  a  curiosity  not  often  to  be 
met  with,  since  it  has  been  left  out  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  I  doubt  not  that  some  persons,  into  whose  hands 
these  letters  may  fall,  will  be  gratified  to  see  it  at  full  length.  I 
insert  it  the  more  readily,  because  it  has  been  considered  a  mas- 
terly exposition  of  the  views  of  the  church,  in  regard  to  one  of  its 
most  important  doctrines.  Archbishop  Seeker  observes,  in  speak- 
ing of  this  creed,  (Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  434)  "the  doctrines  are  unde- 
niably the  same  with  those,  that  are  contained  in  the  articles  of  the 
church,  only  here  they  are  somewhat  more  distinctly  set  forth  to 
prevent  equivocation." 

ATHANASIAN    CREED. 

Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary  that 
he  hold  the  Catholic  faith. 

Which  faith,  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and  undefiled, 
without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly. 

And  the  Catholic  faith  is  this,  That  we  worship  one  God  in 
trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity. 

Neither  confoundmg  the  persons,  nor  dividing  the  substance. 

For  there  is  one  person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son,  and 
another  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  all  one;  the  glory  equal,  the  majesty  co-eternal. 

Such  as  the  Father  is,  such  is  the  Son,  and  such  is  the  Holy 
Ghost. 


89 

Prayer.  It  was  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  princi- 
ple, that  the  apostolic  succession  could  be  kept  up 
only  through  the  English  bishops;  and,  therefore, 
whatever  alterations  might  be  made  in  the  church 
service,  they  must  be  such  as  would  be  sanctioned  in 
England.  In  this  way,  the  members  of  the  conven- 
tions were  trammelled  and  constrained,  and  actually 
deterred  from  making  such  alterations  as  their  good 
sense  induced  them  to  think  necessary. 

The  Father  unci-eate,  the  Son  uncreate,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
uncreate. 

The  Father  incomprehensible,  the  Son  incomprehensible,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  incomprehensible. 

The  Father  eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  eter- 
nal; 

And  yet  they  are  not  three  eternals,  but  one  eternal. 

As  also  there  are  not  three  incomprehensibles,  nor  three  un- 
created; but  one  uncreated,  and  one  incomprehensible. 

So  likewise  the  Father  is  Almighty,  the  Son  Almighty,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  Almighty; 

And  yet  they  are  not  three  Almighties,  but  one  Almighty. 

So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God; 

And  yet  they  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God. 

So  likewise,  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  Lord,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  Lord; 

And  yet  not  three  Lords,  but  one  Lord. 

For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  christian  verity,  to  acknow- 
ledge every  Person  by  himself  to  be  God  and  Lord; 

So  are  we  forbidden  by  the  Catholic  religion  to  say,  there  be 
three  Gods,  or  three  Lords. 

The  Father  is  made  of  none,  neither  created,  nor  begotten. 

The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone,  not  made,  nor  created,  but  be-« 
gotten. 

The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son;  neither  made^ 
nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding. 


90 

The  first  convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  was  held  at  Philadelphia  in  September, 
1785.  It  consisted  of  clerical  and  lay  delegates  from 
the  states  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South  Carolina. 
By  this  convention,  the  thirty-nine  articles  were  re- 
duced to  twenty;  the  Athanasian  and  Nicene  creedg 
were  rejected;  the  clause  in  the  Apostles'  creed,  "he 
descended  into  hell,''  was  omitted;  and  various  other 
omissions  and  changes  were  made  in  different  parts  of 

So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  Fathers;  one  Son,  not  three 
Sons;  one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy  Ghosts. 

And  in  this  trinity  none  is  afore  or  after  other,  none  is  greater 
or  less  than  another; 

But  the  whole  three  Persons  are  co-eternal  together,  and  co- 
equal. 

So  that  in  all  things,  as  is  aforesaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinity,  and 
the  Trinity  in  Unity  is  to  be  worshipped. 

He  therefore  that  will  be  saved,  must  thus  think  of  the  Trinity. 

Furthermore,  it  is  necessary  to  everlasting  salvation,  that  he 
also  believe  rightly  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

For  the  right  faith  is,  that  we  believe  and  confess.  That  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  God  and  man; 

God  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  begotten  before  the  worlds; 
and  Man  of  the  substance  of  his  mother,  born  in  the  world; 

Perfect  God,  and  perfect  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul,  and  human 
flesh  subsisting; 

Equal  to  the  Father,  as  touching  his  Godhead;  and  inferior  to 
the  Father,  as  touching  his  manhood. 

Who  although  he  be  God  and  man,  yet  he  is  not  two,  but  one 
Christ; 

One;  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh,  but  by  taking 
of  the  manhood  into  God; 

'    One  altogether;  not  by  confusion  of  substance,  but  by  unity  of 
person. 

For  as  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  an  d 
man  is  one  Christ; 


91 

the  Liturgy.     A  committee  was  appointed  to  publish 
the  Prayer  Book  with  these  alterations.* 

The  convention  also  agreed  to  an  Ecclesiastical 
Constitution  for  the  government  of  the  church.  The 
following  was  the  eighth  article.  "Every  clergyman, 
whether  bishop,  or  presbyter,  or  deacon,  shall  be 
amenable  to  the  authority  of  the  convention  in  the 
state  to  which  he  belongs,  so  far  as  relates  to  sus- 
pension or  removal  from  office;  and  the  convention  in 
each  state  shall  institute  rules  for  their  conduct,  and 
an  equitable  mode  of  trial."  It  was  also  resolved  by 
the  convention  *Ho  address  the  archbishops  and  bi- 

Who  suffered  for  our  salvation,  descended  into  hell,  rose  again 
the  third  day  from  the  dead; 

He  ascended  into  heaven,  he  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  God  Almighty;  from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead. 

At  whose  coming  all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their  bodies,  and 
shall  give  account  for  their  own  works. 

And  they  that  have  done  good,  shall  go  into  life  everlasting; 
and  they  that  have  done  evil,  into  everlasting  fire. 

This  is  the  Catholic  faith,  which  except  a  man  believe  faith- 
fully he  cannot  be  saved. 

*  This  book  was  printed,  and  has  usually  been  called  the 
"Prayer  Book  of  1785."  As  it  was  left  discretional  with  the 
churches  to  use  it  or  not,  it  seems  not  to  have  been  generally 
adopted.  The  English  Prayer  Book  was  for  the  most  part  used, 
with  such  alterations  only,  in  the  public  forms,  as  the  revolution 
had  rendered  necessary.  No  uniformity  existed  till  the  year 
1790,  when  the  present  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  received  into 
all  the  churches,  by  order  of  the  convention. 

The  twenty  articles  of  the  book  of  1785  differ  very  little  from 
the  thirty-nine,  in  points  of  doctrine  and  faith.  The  doctrine  of 
the  trinity  is  expressed  in  somewhat  such  language,  as  it  is  in  the 
Nicene  creed;  two  of  the  old  articles  are  sometimes  incorporated 


92    ~ 

shops  of  the  church  of  England,  requesting  them  to 
confer  the  episcopal  character  on  such  persons  as 
shall  be  chosen  and  recommended  to  them  for  that 
purpose,  from  the  conventions  of  their  church  in  their 
respective  states." 

At  a  second  convention  held  at  Philadelphia,  in 
June  of  the  next  year,  a  letter  from  the  archbishop 
and  bishops  of  the  church  of  England  was  read.  In 
this  letter  they  approve  of  the  application  made  to 
them  to  confer  the  episcopal  character,  but  express 
some  hesitation  on  account  of  the  changes,  which 
had  been  made  in  the  Liturgy.  "While  we  are  anx- 
ious," say  they,  "to  give  every  proof,  not  only  of  our 
brotherly  affections,  but  of  our  facility  in  forwarding 
your  wishes,  we  cannot  but  be  extremely  cautious, 
lest  we  should  be  the  instruments  of  establishing  an 
ecclesiastical  system,  which  will  be  called  a  branch 
of  the  church  of  England,  but  afterwards  may  appear 
to  have  departed  from  it  essentially,  either  in  doctrine 
or  discipline." 

By  this  convention  it  was  ^^resolved  unanimously, 
that  it  be  recommended  to  this  church  in  the  states 
here  represented,  not  to  receive  to  the  pastoral  charge 
within  their  respective  limits,  clergymen  professing 
canonical  subjection  to  any  bishop,  in  any  state  or 
country,  other  than  those  bishops  who  may  be  duly 

into  one;  and  some  of  the  references  to  the  ancient  heresies  are 
omitted. 

In  regard  to  the  judgment  of  the  church  in  controversies  of  faith, 
they  are  not  so  positive  as  the  old  articles.  The  following  is  froin 
the  thirteenth  article.  "'General  councils  and  churches  are  liable 
to  err,  and  have  erred,  both  in  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine,  as 
well  as  in  their  ceremonies." 


93 

settled  in  the  states  represented  in  this  convention.'' 
An  addition  was  also  made  to  the  eighth  article  of  the 
constitution,  above  quoted,  relative  to  the  trial  of  bi- 
shops, presbyters,  and  deacons.  It  was  found,  that  in 
its  original  construction,  too  much  authority  was 
given  to  the  conventions.  The  episcopal  dignity  was 
not  sufficiently  respected.  To  remove  this  difficulty, 
the  following  clause  was  added,  "And  at  every  trial 
of  a  bishop,  there  shall  be  one  or  more  of  the  episco- 
pal order  present;  and  none  but  a  bishop  shall  pro- 
nounce sentence  of  deposition  or  degradation  from  the 
ministry  on  any  clergyman,  whether  bishop,  presby- 
ter, or  deacon."*  It  was  not  enough,  that  the  con- 
ventions should  "institute  rules  for  an  equitable  mode 
of  trial/'  unless  the  application  of  these  rules  were 
sanctioned  by  the  voice  of  a  bishop. 

The  c(mvention  dissolved,  after  having  agreed  on 
an  answer  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the  En- 
glish church,  in  which  they  repeat  their  request  to 
receive  from  them  the  episcopal  character^  and  te 
"remove  the  present  hesitation,  send  the  proposed 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  and  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.'' 

A  third  convention  was  held  at  Wilmington  in  De- 
laware, October,  1786.  The  principal  object  of  this 
convention  was  to  take  into  consideration  letters, 
which  had  lately  been  received  from  the  archbishops 
of  England,  in  reply  to  the  answer  above  mentioned. 
In  one  of  these  letters  the  archbishops  state,  "that  it 

*  The  article  still  remains  in  this  form,  and  makes  the  sixth 
article  of  the  constitution  of  the  church. 
See  Constitution,  Canons,  &c.  Philadelphia,  1813,  p.  45. 
13 


94 

was  impossible  not  to  observe  with  concern,  that,  if 
the  essential  doctrines  of  our  common  faith  were  re- 
tained, less  respect  however  was  paid  to  our  Liturgy 
than  its  own  excellence,  and  your  declared  attach- 
ment to  it,  had  led  us  to  expect;  not  to  mention  a  va- 
riety of  verbal  alterations,  of  the  necessity  or  pro- 
priety of  which  we  are  by  no  means  satisfied;  we  saw 
with  grief,  that  two  of  the  confessions  of  our  chris- 
tian faith,  respectable  for  their  antiquity,  have  been 
entirely  laid  aside;  and  that  even  in  that  which  is 
called  the  Apostles'  creed,  an  article  is  omitted,  which 
was  thought  necessary  to  be  inserted,  with  a  view  to 
a  particular  heresy,  in  a  very  early  age  of  the  church, 
and  has  ever  since  had  the  sanction  of  universal  re- 
ception." 

After  expressing  a  wish  to  continue  in  spiritual 
communion  with  the  American  church,  and  a  ^^sincere 
desire  to  complete  the  orders  of  their  ministry,"  they 
add,  "we  therefore  most  earnestly  exhort  you,  that 
you  restore  to  its  integrity  the  Apostles'  creed,  in  which 
you  have  omitted  an  article  merely,  as  it  seems,  from 
misapprehension  of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  under- 
stood by  our  church;  nor  can  we  help  adding,  that 
we  hope  you  will  think  it  but  a  decent  proof  of  the 
attachment  you  possess  to  the  services  of  our  Liturgy, 
to  give  to  the  other  two  creeds  a  place  in  your  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  even  though  the  use  of  them 
should  be  left  discretional." 

The  archbishops  also  complain  of  the  eighth  arti- 
cle of  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  *^^and  strongly 
represent,  that  it  appears  to  them  to  be  a  degradation 
of  the  clerical,  and  still  more  of  the  episcopal  char- 
acter;" and  this,  notwithstanding  all  trials  were  to  be 


95 

conducted  by  the  rules  of  equity.  Bat  happily  this 
article  had  already  been  altered,  before  their  letter 
arrived. 

In  a  letter  from  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  re- 
ceived at  the  same  time,  it.  is  said,  "but  whether  we 
can  consecrate  any  (bishop)  or  not,  must  yet  depend 
on  the  answers  we  may  receive  to  what  we  have 
written." 

These  letters  produced  the  eifect,  which  the  En- 
glish bishops  desired.  The  convention  immediately 
reconsidered  their  former  doings.  They  admitted 
unanimously  ^the  Nicene  creed;  they  received  the 
clause  into  the  Apostles'  creed,  which  they  had  for 
the  best  of  reasons  rejected;  and  even  there  were  some 
advocates  for  the  restoration  of  the  xlthanasian  creed, 
with  all  its  uncharitable  denunciations.* 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  this  historical  sketch 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  first  conventions,  that  it  may 
be  seen  by  what  motives  they  were  influenced  in  mak- 
ing the  alterations,  which  they  finally  adopted.  Their 
first  decisions  were  no  doubt  such  as  their  understand- 
ing, their  unbiassed  reflections,  and  their  knowledge 
of  the  scriptures  prompted  them  to  make.  What 
could  induce  them  to  abandon  opinions,  which  they 
had  deliberately  formed  on  a  subject  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  solemn  nature?  The  only  reason,  which 
can  be  discovered,  was  the  good  will  and  pleasure  of 
the  archbishops  of  the  English  church.  The  members 
of  the  conventions  left  every  thing  else  behind,  in 
pursuit  of  the  phantom  of  episcopacy.     Instead  of  ap- 

*  See  "Proceedings  of  the  general  conventions  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America;"  and 
Lindsey's  Vindicise  Priestleianee,  §  2,  p.  20,  etseqq. 


96 

pealing  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  acting  solely  upon 
the  principles  of  reason  and  scripture,  they  squared 
their  proceedings  by  a  letter  from  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury.  In  their  view,  episcopacy  seems  to  have 
been  the  great  bulwark  of  religion,  without  which, 
the  whole  fabric  must  fall.  To  secure  this  bulwark, 
iiQ  sacrifices  were  to  be  thought  too  great. 

As  to  the  Apostles'  creed,  so  called,  it  has  very 
little  in  it  objectionable,  except  the  name,  and  the 
clause  mentioned  above.  Calling  it  by  the  name  of  the 
apostles  may  lead  some  into  the  mistaken  notion,  that 
it  was  made  by  them.  This  notion  m  as  advanced 
and  defended  by  some  of  the  later  Fathers,  who  even 
went  so  far  as  to  say,  that  each  apostle  contributed  a 
part.  Although  the  substance  of  this  creed,  express- 
ed in  different  forms,  is  confessedly  very  ancient,  yet 
nothing  was  said  of  its  apostolical  origin,  till  nearly 
four  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
when  it  was  first  mentioned  by  Ambrose.  It  might, 
therefore,  with  much  more  propriety,  be  called  the 
creed  of  the  Fathers,  than  of  the  apostles.  Bishop 
Burnet,  bishop  Pearson,  and  others  agree,  that  the 
clause  of  Christ's  descent  into  hell,  was  not  added 
till  the  fifth  century.* 

As  the  scriptures  are  a  sufficient  rule  of  faith,  and 
all  creeds  are  formed  by  human  invention,  and  en- 
forced by  human  authority,  have  we  not  good  reason 
to  suspect  their  utility?  Any  other  fixed  formulary  of 
belief,  than  the  word  of  God  itself,  must  have  on  the 
clergy  an  extremely  injurious,  and  sometimes  an 
immoral  tendency.  At  the  best,  it  must  keep  up  an 
exclusive  spirit,  and  a  bigoted  attachment  to  the  faith 

^  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  vol,  i.  p.  341.  ii.  p.  287. 


97 

and  ordinances  of  the  particular  church  to  which  they 
happen  to  helong. 

Archdeacon  Paley  says  of  creeds,  "they  check  in- 
quiry; they  violate  liberty;  they  ensnare  the  con- 
sciences of  the  clergy  by  holding  out  temptations  to 
prevarication."  Nothing  can  be  more  obvious,  than 
these  consequences.  A  clergyman,  who  has  been  or- 
dained only  on  condition  of  expressing  a  belief,  that 
the  articles  of  his  church  are  agreeable  to  the  word 
of  Grod,  and  of  ^^soleranly  engaging  to  conform  to  the 
doctrines"  contained  in  these  articles,  cannot  after- 
wards change  his  mind,  and  retain  his  situation, 
without  being  guilty  of  prevarication,  dishonesty,  or 
fraud. 

The  only  way  for  him  to  keep  a  quiet  conscience, 
is,  to  shut  up  his  Bible,  and  fix  his  eyes  on  the  arti- 
cles of  the  church.  If  he  be  ignorant,  he  must  re- 
main ignorant;  if  in  the  dark,  he  must  take  care  to 
avoid  the  light.  If  he  read  the  Bible,  it  must  never 
be  with  a  view  to  inquire  for  truth,  but  only  to 
strengthen  his  former  opinions. 

The  amiable  and  excellent  Dr.  Lindsey  retained 
his  place  for  sometime  in  the  church,  after  he  was 
convinced,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  was  unscrip- 
tural.  He  still  adhered  to  the  articles,  and  satisfied 
his  conscience  by  explaining  the  trinity  according  to 
the  Sabellian  theory,  or  the  modal  scheme  of  Dr. 
Wallis.  Upon  more  serious  reflection,  however,  he 
rejected  this  mode  of  explanation  as  a  subterfuge,  to 
which  he  could  not  persuade  himself  that  he  ought  to 
resort,  and  retired  from  the  cliurch.  It  is  well  known, 
that  many  clergymen  in  the  English  church,  from  the 
time  of  Dr.  Wallis  to  the  present  day,  have  entertain- 


98 

ed  similar  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  trinity,  and  sa- 
tisfied themselves  with  the  same  kind  of  explanations. 
By  concealment,  prevarication,  and  a  forced  construc- 
tion of  the  articles,  they  have  contrived  to  keep  up  a 
show  of  compliance  with  the  creeds  and  articles  of 
the  church. 

These  consequences  are  not  so  much  chargeahle  on 
individuals,  as  on  the  church,  which  imposes  such  re- 
strictions on  its  ministers.  Why  should  these  temp- 
tations be  thrown  in  their  way?  If  you  deprive  men 
of  their  liberty,  you  cannot  suppose  they  will  be  very 
choice  in  the  means  they  use  to  throw  off  their  shac- 
kles, and  escape  from  thraldom; — and  of  all  the  va- 
rious kinds  of  servitude,  the  slavery  of  conscience 
and  of  opinion  is  the  most  degrading,  and  to  a  mind 
which  has  a  single  spark  of  its  native  energy  left,  the 
most  difficult  to  be  endured. 

Many  persons  of  the  highest  eminence  for  talents, 
attainments,  and  excellence,  both  among  the  clergy 
and  laity,  who  have  been  much  attached  to  the  forms 
of  the  English  church,  but  wlio  could  not  reconcile 
themselves  to  its  creeds,  and  especially  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity,  have  thought  it  their  duty  to  se- 
cede, and  unite  themselves  to  such  societies,  as  allow 
a  freedom  of  opinion,  and  require  no  other  form  of 
faith,  than  that,  which  is  contained  in  the  sacred  wri- 
tings. Memorable  examples  are  presented  in  Mr. 
Emlyn,  Dr.  Lindsey,  Dr.  Jebb,  the  late  duke  of  Graf- 
ton, sir  George  Savile,  and  others. 

Some  others,  not  less  conscientious  or  enlightened, 
although  of  decided  Unitarian  principles,  have  con- 
sidered it  their  duty,  for  various  reasons,  to  remain  in 
the  church.     Newton  and  Locke,  although  Unita- 


99 

rians,  adhered  to  the  established  worship.  Dr. 
Samuel  Clarke,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  scho- 
lars and  divines,  whom  the  church  has  ever  possess- 
ed, did  not  forsake  the  established  forms,  although 
he  publicly  avowed  himself  to  be  a  Unitarian,  and 
proposed  such  alterations  in  the  Liturgy,  as  would 
enable  christians  of  all  denominations  to  join  con- 
scientiously in  the  church  service.*  Archdeacon 
Blackburn,  Shipley,  bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  and  Law, 
bishop  of  Carlisle,  who  are  known  not  to  have  been 
of  the  orthodox  faith  in  regard  to  the  trinity,  always 
remained  in  the  established  church. f 

There  was  nothing  unjustifiable,  perhaps,  in  the 
course  which  these  men  pursued,  when  their  senti- 
ments were  publicly  known.  Their  sense  of  duty, 
their  wish  to  be  extensively  useful,  their  early  attach- 
ments, and  desire  for  peace  in  the  church,  were  pro- 
bably such  motives  as  enabled  them  to  forego  the  ad- 
ditional comfort  and  satisfaction,  which  they  might 
derive  from  a  more  congenial  mode  of  worship,  and 
to  use  their  best  diligence  in  employing  the  means 
of  doing  good,  which  providence  had  put  in  their 
power.  But  all  the  examples  here  introduced  afford 
a  practical  comment  on  the  inexpediency,  and  inju- 
rious tendency,  of  human  forms  of  belief,  to  which 

*  When  Dr.  Clarke  took  the  degree  of  doctor  in  divinity  at 
Cambridge,  he  delivered  and  defended  a  thesis  on  the  following 
proposition.  "No  article  of  the  christian  faith,  delivered  in  the 
sacred  scriptures,  is  contrary  to  right  reason."  Nullum  Fidei 
Christianse  Dogma  in  S.  Scripturis  traditum  est  rectfe  rationi 
dissentaneum. 

t  See  Belsham's  Letters  to  the  bishop  of  London,  second  edi- 
tion, p.  23. 


100 

humble,  pious,  and  enlightened  christians  of  every  de- 
nomination cannot  subscribe. 

The  evils  of  creeds  are  not  felt  with  less  force  by 
the  people,  than  the  clergy.  The  injury  is  greater, 
as  it  applies  to  them,  because  more  extensive.  If  the 
people  can  be  persuaded,  that  all  the  important  doc- 
trines of  religion  are  comprised  in  the  formularies  of 
the  church,  and  that  these  formularies  have  been  drawn 
up,  and  are  still  taught  and  explained  by  men,  who 
have  descended  in  a  regular  succession  from  the  apos- 
tles, they  will  not  only  think  it  unnecessary,  but  even 
dangerous  to  inquire  further.  To  look  into  the  opin- 
ions of  other  christians,  to  examine  their  arguments, 
and  study  the  scriptures  to  know  on  what  grounds 
they  build  their  opinions,  would  be  an  implied  ac- 
knowledgment, that  the  church  may  not  have  the 
whole  truth  on  its  side.  The  consequence  must  be, 
that  the  Bible  will  be  little  read.  It  will  become  a 
book  of  secondary  importance.  I  believe,  indeed,  the 
instances  are  not  rare,  in  which  the  Prayer  Book  is 
quoted  by  zealous  churchmen,  in  common  conversa- 
tion, on  points  of  controversy,  with  scarcely  less  re- 
verence, than  the  Bible  itself. 

The  times  have  gone  by,  when  an  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  said,  "a  christian  must  not  inquire  about 
the  truth  of  any  thing,  which  the  church  believes,  but 
is  simply  to  believe  whatever  the  Romish  church  pro- 
fesseth  to  believe,"  yet  it  is  the  same  thing  in  reality, 
if  not  in  words,  for  a  bishop  or  minister  of  the  present 
day  to  tell  his  people,  that  the  articles  of  the  church 
have  been  established  by  men,  possessing  apostolical 
authority,  and  contain  every  thing  essential  to  salva- 
tion.   When  he  advises  his  people  not  to  become  ac- 


101 

qiiainted  with  the  sentiments  of  christians  of  other  de- 
nominations, and  represents  to  them  the  danger  of 
reading  their  books;  when  he  takes  pains  to  confine 
their  religious  knowledge  to  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  to  such  interpretations  of  the  scripture 
only,  as  are  consistent  with  this  hook;  when  he  tells 
them,  that  no  persons  can  he  considered  as  christian 
ministers,  who  have  not  been  ordained  according  to  the 
canons  of  the  church,  and  that  the  ordinances  of  our 
holy  religion,  performed  by  such  persons,  are  unscrip- 
tural  and  invalid, — when  he  assumes  the  right  grave- 
ly to  impress  these  things  on  the  minds  of  the  people, 
what  else  does  he,  but  urge  the  implicit  authority  of 
the  church,  and  virtually  take  away  from  every  one 
belonging  to  it  the  right  of  private  judgment? 

I  would  not  be  understood  to  intimate,  that  such 
is  the  practice  of  all  bishops  and  ministers;  but  I 
think  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  it  is  the  practice  of 
some.  Perhaps  they  are  not  to  be  censured  on  this 
account.  It  is  to  be  presumed  they  act  conscientious, 
ly;  and  what  more  can  be  required  of  a  man,  than  to 
do  what  he  sincerely  believes  his  duty?  He  may 
think  such  means  necessary  to  preserve  the  dignity 
and  purity  of  the  church.  But  does  it  not  argue 
some  defect  in  the  principles  of  a  church,  which  re- 
quires, or  even  allows  its  ministers  to  resort  to  such 
means  of  supporting  its  cause? 

The  people  are  the  sufferers.  They  are  made 
to  rest  satisfied  with  slender  religious  attainments, 
and  to  contract  unworthy  prejudices  against  their 
fellow  christians  of  other  denominations.  It  is,  also, 
to  be  feared,  that  they  too  ofteli  lose  much  of  the 
spirit  of  religion,  in  their  zeal  for  the  peculiar  tenetn 
ih 


102 

of  the  church;  as  they  are  taught,  by  what  they  are 
made  to  believe  the  highest  authority,  to  receive  these 
tenets  as  the  necessary  truths  of  scripture.  Ministers 
of  the  gospel  should  not  be  accessary  to  such  conse- 
quences as  these;  and  it  is  much  to  be  lamented,  that 
the  principles  of  any  church  should  have  a  tendency 
to  diminish  the  value  of  religious  knowledge  in  the 
estimation  of  its  members,  to  weaken  the  ties  of  bro- 
therly kindness,  or  to  narrow  the  bounds  of  christian 
charity. 

That  is  a  false  argument,  which  would  prove  it  to 
be  a  recommendation  to  the  episcopal  church,  that  it 
possesses  ^'a  standard,  which  can  neither  be  removed 
nor  shaken — an  unalterable  test  of  the  soundness  of 
its  doctrines."*  This  is  one  of  the  strongest  argu- 
ments, which  can  possibly  be  used  against  the  system 
of  the  church.  That  it  forces  on  its  members  an  "un- 
shaken standard"  of  faith,  is  the  very  thing,  which  all 
christians,  who  value  the  scriptures,  and  the  freedom 
of  conscience,  must  deprecate.  It  implies,  that  the 
persons  who  formed  this  standard  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  were  empowered  by  a  divine  commission 
for  this  purpose,  and  received  an  illumination  from 
above,  to  enable  them  to  discover  the  true  interpreta- 
tion of  the  scriptures.  No  one  can  rely  on  this  stan- 
dard, till  he  believes  these  facts. 

The  church  of  Home  is  much  more  consistent  in  its 
views  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  than  the  English 
church.  The  Catholics  lay  it  down  as  a  necessary 
principle,  that  the  church  is  infallible.     This  at  once 

*  Sermon  on  "Reasons  for  preferring  the  Church  of  England." 
Maturin's  Sermons,  London,  181 9,  p.  405. 


103 

gives  authority  to  tradition,  and  affords  a  plausible 
reason  for  all  their  ceremonies.  They  believe,  that  '*as 
Jesus  Christ  established  his  church  by  preaching, — 
the  unwritten  word  was  the  first  rule  of  Christianity, 
and  retained  the  same  authority  after  the  writings  of 
the  Mew  Testament  were  joined  with  it.  For  this 
reason  they  receive  with  equal  veneration  all  that  was 
taught  by  the  apostles,  either  in  writing  or  by  word 
of  mouth."*  The  church  was  the  sacred  depository 
of  this  unwritten  word,  and  through  this  channel  it 
has  been  transmitted  unimpaired  t!o  the  present  day. 

They  suppose  the  "church  to  have  been  established 
by  the  Almighty,  to  be  the  guardian  of  the  scriptures, 
and  of  tradition;  wherefore  the  church  professes  to, 
say  nothing  of  herself,  to  invent  no  new  doctrine,  and 
only  to  follow  and  declare  the  divine  revelation  by 
the  interior  direction  of  the  holy  spirit,  which  is  given 
to  her  as  a  teacher.  It  is  for  this  cause,  that  the 
children  of  God  acquiesce  in  the  judg:nent  of  the 
church,  believing  they  have  received  from  her  mouth 
the  oracles  of  the  holy  spirit;  and  it  is  on  account  of 
this  belief,  that  after  having  said  in  the  creed,  /  6e- 
lieve  in  the  holy  spirit^  they  immediately  add,  the 
holy  catholic  church;  by  which  they  bind  themselves 
to  acknowledge  the  infallible  and  perpetual  truth  of 
the  universal  church,  because  this  church  herself, 
which  they  have  always  professed  to  believe,  would 
cease  to  be  a  church,  if  it  should  cease  to  teach  the 
revealed  truth  of  God.  To  apprehend,  therefore, 
that  she  has  abused  her  power  to  establish  a  false- 

*  Exposition  de  la  Doctrine  de  I'E^lise  Catliolitiue,  par  Bossuet, 
Oeuv.  Torn,  xviii.  p.  140. 


104 

hood,  is  to  have  uo  faith  in  him,  by  whom  she  is  go- 
verned."* 

Here  is  consistency.  If  the  church  have  authority  in 
one  case,  it  has  in  another.  If  any  particular  doc- 
trine, rite,  or  ceremony,  is  to  be  received  from  tradi- 
tion, every  doctrine,  rite,  or  ceremony,  which  cannot 
be  traced  back  to  a  certain  origin,  is  to  be  received  on 
the  same  authority.  Tradition  is  worth  nothing, 
unless  it  have  been  transmitted  by  an  infallible  guide. 
Such  a  guide  the  church  of  Rome  professes  to  follow, 
and  is,  therefore,  entirely  consistent  in  believing  in 
the  divine  origin  of  its  institutions. 

But  tlie  English  church  has  destroyed  this  con- 
sistency, by  rejecting  infallibility,  and  still  retaining 
the  authority  of  tradition.  One  argument,  which  you 
bring  in  favour  of  the  divine  origin  of  episcopacy,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  is,  that  the  opponents  of  this 
doctrine,  "have  never  been  able  to  agree  upon  any  one 
period,  in  which  it  could,  even  in  their  opinion,  have 
probably  originated."  The  same  argument  is  used 
by  Bossuet  to  prove  the  divine  origin  of  all  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Catholic  church;t  and  it  will  certain- 
ly apply  as  well  in  one  case  as  the  other.  As  far 
as  this  argument  goes,  it  is  certain  the  church  of  Eng- 

*  lb,  p.  141, 142, 143.  See  also  on  this  subject,  The  Unerring  Au- 
thority of  the  Catholic  Church  in  matters  of  Faith,  Philadelphia, 
1789,  Preliminary  Propositions,  and  p.  75.  Bossuet's  Exposition, 
translated  by  Coppinger,  New  Yorjv,  1808,  third  edition,  p.  1^2 — 
129. 

t  "La  marque  certaine  qu'une  doctrine  vient  des  apotres,  est 
lorsqu'  elle  est  embrassee  par  toutes  les  Eglises  chretiennes,  sans 
qu'  on  en  puisse  marquer  le  commencement."  Expos,  de  la  DoQt. 
de  L'Eglise  Cath.  §  18. 


105 

land  had  no  more  reason  for  retaining  episcopacy, 
tlie  ceremony  of  confirmation,  the  sign  of  the  cross  in 
baptism,  and  saints'  days,  as  divine  institutions,  than  it 
had  for  retaining  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence, 
use  of  the  chrism  in  confirmation,  extreme  unction,  sa- 
cramental confession,  and  many  other  ceremonies  of 
the  Catholic  church,  which  it  rejected  as  corrnptions. 
The  former  are  as  much  founded  on  tradition,  as  tiie 
latter;  and  neither  of  them  can  be  of  any  validity,  ex- 
cept on  the  Catholic  principle  of  infallibility.  Every 
dissenting  church,  at  the  present  day,  may  with  as 
much  justice  give  the  name  of  "corruptions"  to  these 
traditional  ceremonies  of  the  English  church,  as  this 
church  did  to  many  of  the  Romish  ceremonies  which 
it  rejected. 

With  equal  propriety  might  the  bounds  of  philoso- 
phical, physical,  and  political  science  have  been  fixed 
in  the  time  of  king  Edward,  as  a  standard  of  religious 
knowledge.  The  king  and  parliament  assembled  had 
the  same  authority  to  establish  certain  sciences,  and  to 
decree,  that  no  innovations  or  improvements  should  be 
made,  as  they  had  i(\  settle  the  rules  of  faith  in  religion. 
They  might  have  decreed,  that  the  earth  was  im- 
moveable, and  the  sun,  moon,  and  all  the  stars  were 
whirled  around  it  once  in  twenty-four  hours,  that  the 
new  system  of  Copernicus  was  a  dangerous  heresy, 
which  all  the  king's  well  meaning  subjects  should 
carefully  avoid.  They  might  have  enjoined  it  as  a 
part  of  the  philosophy  of  the  realm,  that  alchymy  and 
astrology  were  founded  on  the  true  principles  of  na- 
ture, as  might  be  proved  "by  most  certain  warrants" 
of  physical  phenomena;  and  we  should  now  be  edi- 
fied with  treatises  on  the  philosopher's  stone,  trans- 


106 

mutations,  and  a  universal  medicine.  We  should 
have  books  to  tell  us  what  planets  ruled  at  our  birth, 
interspersed  with  appropriate  figures  of  horoscopes, 
schemes  of  nativity,  and  positions  of  the  stars.  They 
might  have  decreed,  that  the  schoolmen  were  the  only 
rational  metaphysicians,  and  that  every  college  in  the 
kingdom  should  make  the  categories,  analytics,  to- 
pics, and  sophistics  of  Aristotle  an  essential  branch 
of  education. 

There  would  have  been  just  as  much  propriety  in 
fixing  rules  of  belief  on  these  subjects,  as  there  was 
in  drawing  up  the  thirty-nine  articles,  and  the  for- 
mularies of  the  church,  and  setting  them  forth  as  a 
st^,ndard  of  religious  faith.  Newton,  and  Bacon,  and 
Locke,  would  have  been  considered  meddling  dissen- 
ters from  the  established  philosophy;  but  still,  the 
force  of  truth  would  have  been  resistless,  and  would 
finally  have  prevailed.  So  it  must  be  in  religion. 
Error  may  be  concealed  and  protected  for  a  long 
time  under  the  guise  of  forms,  and  in  the  mists  of  ig- 
norance; but  the  light  of  truth  will  at  length  pene- 
trate so  flimsy  a  covering,  and  dissolve  the  cloud. 

It  is  said,  that  creeds  have  a  tendency  to  keep 
schism  out  of  the  church,  by  causing  all  its  members 
to  think  alike.  This  would  be  good  reasoning,  if  the 
church  were  infallible;  but  on  no  other  supposition. 
Unless  it  were  infallible,  there  could  be  no  certainty 
of  its  having  the  only  true  faith;  and  no  church  should 
claim  authority  to  keep  its  members  in  ignorance  and 
error  to  prevent  schism.  Milton,  speaking  on  this 
subject  with  particular  reference  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  church,  and  the  scheme  of  prelacy,  observes,  "If 
to  bring  a  numb  and  chill  stupidity  of  soul,  an  un- 


107 

active  blindness  of  mind  upon  the  people  by  their 
leaden  doctrine,  or  no  doctrine  at  all;  if  to  persecute 
all  knowing  and  zealous  christians  by  the  violence  of 
their  courts,  be  to  keep  away  schism,  they  keep  schism 
away  indeed;  and  by  this  kind  of  discipline,  all  Italy 
and  vSpain  is  as  purely  and  politically  kept  from 
schism,  as  England  hath  been  by  them.  With  as  good 
plea  might  the  dead  palsy  boast  to  a  man,  ^it  is  I  that 
free  you  from  stitches  and  pains,  and  the  troublesome 
feeling  of  cold  and  heat,  of  wounds  and  strokes;  if  I 
were  gone,  all  these  would  molest  you.'  The  winter 
might  as  well  vaunt  itself  against  the  spring,  *I 
destroy  all  noisome  and  rank  weeds,  1  keep  down 
all  pestilent  vapours;'  yes,  and  all  wholesome  herbs, 
and  all  fresh  dews,  by  your  violent  and  hidebound 
frost;  but  when  the  gentle  west  winds  shall  open  the 
fruitful  bosom  of  the  earth,  thus  overgirded  by  your 
imprisonment,  then  the  flowers  put  forth  and  spring, 
and  then  the  sun  shall  scatter  the  mists,  and  the  ma- 
nuring hand  of  the  tiller  shall  root  up  all  that  burdens 
the  soil,  without  thanks  to  your  bondage."* 

These  remarks  are  but  too  applicable  to  fixed  for- 
mularies of  faith  of  every  description.  They  are 
made  and  imposed  without  authority;  and  any  at- 
tempt to  force  them  on  the  minds  of  men  is  an  en- 
croachment on  the  liberty,  and  an  insult  to  the  un- 
derstanding of  christians.  The  apostles  took  upon 
them  no  such  power.  St.  Paul  enjoins  the  Galatians 
to  ^'stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  had 
made  them  free,  and  not  to  be  entangled  again  with 

*  The  Reason  of  Church  Government  urged  against  Prelaty; 
Prose  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  6;1. 


108 

the  yoke  of  bonclasie."  And  to  the  Corinthians  he 
writes,  "We  have  not  dominion  over  your  faith,  but 
are  iielpers  of  your  joy;  for  by  faith  ye  stand  "  2  Cor. 
i.  24. — Not  by  faith  in  creeds,  for  this  would  be  giv- 
ing up  our  liberty,  taking  upon  us  a  yoke  of  bondage, 
and  submitting  to  the  dominion  of  others;  but  by 
faith  in  the  word  of  God,  which  all  persons  are  free 
to  consult, — and  this  freedom  all  must  be  allowed 
to  enjoy,  before  they  can  be  required  to  believe  or 
obey. 


ILlSS^iaiB  It^o 


Reverend  and  dear  sir, 

The  second  part  of  your  discourse  is  taken  up 
in  showing,  that  yon  are  not  a  Calvinist,  and  in  at- 
tempting to  show,  that  the  articles  of  the  church  are 
not  calvinistic.  I  have  no  wish  to  go  into  a  contro- 
versy, which  has  been  so  long  agitated  by  different 
parties  in  the  episcopal  church  itself,  and  which  has 
been  already  more  than  exhausted;  yet  I  cannot  but 
think,  that  your  conclusions  on  this  subject  are  feebly 
supported  by  facts,  and  at  the  same  time  so  broad  and 
positive,  as  to  lead  some  of  your  readers  into  mis- 
take. I  propose  to  do  little  more,  than  to  quote  cer- 
tain passages  from  the  Liturgy,  Articles,  and  Homi- 
lies, and  see  whether  they  are  not  strikingly  incon- 
sistent with  the  sentiments  you  advance. 

After  making  various  selections  from  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  to  exhibit  what  you  consider  the  most 
offensive  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  and  assuring  your 
readers,  that  such  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  church, 
you  make  the  following  remarks. 

"Explicit  as  is   the  language  of  the  articles  and 
services  of  our  church  on  this  head;  and  strong  as  is 
14 


110 

the  claim,  which  they  make  to  consistency,  nothing 
is  more  frequent,  notwithstanding,  on  the  part  of  the 
advocates  of  doctrines  peculiarly  styled  ^calvinis- 
tic,'  than  the  assertion,  that  such  doctrines  are  main- 
tained in  our  ninth  and  seventeenth  articles.  Never 
was  there  a  more  groundless  charge.  Those  articles 
do  not  in  the  remotest  degree,  allude  to  the  funda- 
mental and  essential  tenets  of  Calvinism."  p.  S7. 

Let  us  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  what  are  the 
*^ 'fundamental  and  essential  doctrines  of  Calvinism.'' 
I  believe  Calvinism  is  usually  summed  up  in  what 
are  called  the  five  points,  namely,  total  depravity, 
election,  particular  redemption,  eflectual  calling,  and 
perseverance  of  the  saints.  Whatever  language  may 
be  used  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Institutes  of 
Calvin,  or  any  where  else,  to  express  and  illustrate, 
these  doctrines,  and  however  unscriptural  such  lan- 
guage may  be,  I  suppose  the  substance  of  the  whole 
is  contained  in  these  five  points.  The  minor  doc- 
trines of  Calvinism,  such  as  salvation  by  grace,  justi* 
fication  by  faith,  special  influence  of  the  spirit,  are  to 
be  referred  to  these  as  their  original  stock. 

If  we  examine  these  points  of  Calvinism,  we  shall 
find  the  two  first  only  to  be  fundamental  doctrines,  of 
which  the  three  last  are  necessary  consequences.  If 
all  men  have  originally  a  corrupt  nature,  which  ren- 
ders them  worthy  of  divine  wrath  and  condemnation, 
and  if  God  in  his  mercy  have  decreed,  according  to  ^'his 
everlasting  purpose,"  that  a  certain  number  of  his 
creatures  shall  be  rescued  from  this  deplorable  condi- 
tion and  finally  be  saved;  it  is  a  natural  and  neces- 
sary consequence,  that  all  such  persons  are  redeemed 
by  a  particular  redemption,  are  effectually  called,  and 


Ill 

will  persevere  to  the  end.  The  decree  of  election  ex- 
tends only  to  particular  persons,  and  therefore  the  re- 
demption it  procures  is  a  particular  redemption;  it  is 
an  absolute  decree,  and  therefore  all  whom  it  calls,  are 
effectually  called;  it  is  an  immutable  decree,  and 
therefore  all  whom  it  restores  to  the  condition  of 
saints,  must  retain  this  condition. 

The  fundamental  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  then,  are 
total  depravity,  and  election;  and  if  these  are  found  to 
be  contained  in  the  articles  and  homilies,  1  suppose  it 
may  be  rightly  inferred,  that  such  are  the  doctrines  of 
the  church.  When  an  established  church  is  built  on 
a  code  of  laws,  articles,  and  formularies,  which  have 
been  fixed  by  convocations  and  conventions,  where 
shall  we  look  for  the  tenets  of  this  church  but 
in  this  code  itself?  Interpretations  and  commentaries, 
to  make  articles  understood,  are  very  suspicious. 
Erudite  researches,  to  find  out  what  the  tramers  of 
the  articles  meant,  are  useless.  It  is  to  be  presumed 
they  meant  what  they  have  expressed.  If  the  church 
fancy  it  has  grown  wiser  and  improved  since  the 
days  of  Cranmer,  and  find  doctrines  contained  in 
some  of  the  articles,  which  it  cannot  receive,  let  it  re- 
ject such  articles,  and  not  resort  to  conceits  and  para- 
phrases to  explain  away  the  meaning,  which  theyirre- 
sistably  force  upon  every  unbiassed  mind. 

Let  us  see  what  the  church  teaches  in  regard  to 
these  two  principal  points  of  Calvinism.  A  single 
reading  of  the  articles,  I  am  persuaded,  would  con- 
vince most  persons,  that  these  doctrines  are  in  sub- 
stance taught  there,  with  as  much  emphasis  as  in  any 
calvinistic  formulary.      I  will  bring  forward  a  few 


passages,  which,  if  they  do  not  imply  the  total  de- 
pravity of  our  nature,  and  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  to  his  posterity,  it  will  he  no  easy  task  to  tell 
what  they  do  imply.  The  ninth  article  has  generally 
been  thought  to  be  of  itself  decisive  on  this  point, 
although  you  are  resolved  it  shall  countenance  no 
such  doctrine.  The  following  are  the  words  of  the 
article,  as  it  stands  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

^'Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam 
(as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the  fault  and 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally 
is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby  man 
is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of 
his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  so  that  the  flesh  lust- 
eth  always  contrary  to  the  spirit;  and  therefore  in 
every  person  born  into  this  world  it  deserveth  God^s 
wrath  and  damnation.  And  this  infection  of  nature 
doth  remain,  yea,  in  them  that  are  regenerated.'' 

Where  will  you  find  the  calvinistic  tenet  of  original 
sin,  and  the  total  depravity  of  human  nature,  ex- 
pressed in  stronger  terms  than  these?  The  "vain 
talk"  of  Pelagius  consisted  in  maintaining,  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  was  not  imputed  to  his  posterity, 
and  that  we  are  born  as  free  from  guilt,  as  if  Adam 
had  never  transgressed.  This  was  called  a  heresy, 
and  to  guard  against  it,  the  article  takes  care  to  tell 
us  in  terms,  which  it  is  presumed  no  one  can  mistake, 
what  the  church  understands  by  original  sin.  And  as 
it  respects  depravity,  what  is  'Hhat  corruption  of  the 
nature  of  every  man,  which  deserveth  Grod's  wrath 
and  damnation,"  if  it  be  not  what  the  Calvinists  call 
total  depravity?   It  will  be  difficult  to  form  a  defini- 


iia 

tion  of  sucli  a  quality,  if  it  be  not  contained  in  thftse 
words.* 

Compare  this  article  with  the  following  extracts. 
^*The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  is  such, 
that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself^  by  his  own 
natural  strength  and  good  works  to  faith  and  calling 
upon  God."  Art.  x.  ^'Works  done  before  the  grace 
of  Christ,  and  the  inspiration  of  his  spirit,  are  not 
pleasant  to  God,  forasmuch  as  they  spring  not  of  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  neither  do  they  make  men  meet  to  re- 
ceive grace; — yea  rather,  for  that  they  are  not  done  as 
God  hath  willed  and  commanded  them  to  be  done,  we 
doubt  not  but  they  have  the  nature  of  sin. ^^  Art.  xiii. 
^^Ml  men  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin,  and  they  who 
are  in  the  flesh  connot  please  God.^^-\ 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  on  these  pas- 
sages. Their  confirmation  of  what  has  been  above 
shown  to  be  the  sense  of  the  ninth  article  must  be  ob- 
vious.    What  else  but  a  corrupt  and  depraved  state 

*The  bishop  of  Lincoln  has  reminded  us,  that  the  article  does 
not  say  we  are  totally  depraved,  but  only  "very  far  gone  from 
original  righteousness."  This  is  a  quibble,  which  few,  probably, 
would  have  discovered  without  aid.  Whoever  resorts  to  it,  needs 
give  no  other  indication  of  the  impressions  he  receives  from  the 
general  import  of  the  article.  That  a  bishop,  and  a  scholar,  should 
decend  to  this  kind  of  trifling,  we  cannot  but  wonder;  especially 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  articles  were  first  drawn  up  in 
Latin,  and  that  this  is  aVery  faulty  translation.  In  the  Latin  it 
stands,  "Ab  originali  justitia  quam  longissime  distet;"  Gone  as 
far  as  possible  from  original  righteousness.  Bishop  of  Lincoln's 
Refutation  of  Calvinism,  chap.  i.  p.  50.  Scott's  reply  to  Tom- 
line,  vol.  i.  p.  80.  The  Fathers,  Beformers,  &c.  in  Harmony  with 
Calvin,  p.  43. 

t  '^Baptism  of  such  as  are  of  riper  years.'^ 


414 

of  our  nature,  in  as  strong  a  sense  as  Calvin  himself 
could  have  expressed  it,  can  render  us  incapable  of 
having  faith,  and  calling  upon  God?  He  must  be  a 
depraved  being,  indeed,  v^^ho  is  not  fit  to  call  on  his 
Maker.  Can  the  good  works  of  any  being,  who  is 
not  totally  depraved,  be  ''of  the  nature  of  sin,  an«l  not 
pleasant  to  Grod?"  Thus  we  see  this  doctrine  is 
most  unequivocally  taught  in  several  articles  of  thd 
church. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  Homilies.  In  the  thirty-fifth 
article,  these  books  are  enjoined  "to  be  read  in 
churches  by  the  ministers  diligently  and  distinctly," 
as  containing  ''a  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine,  and 
necessary  for  these  times."  Tbe  Homilies,  there- 
fore, I  suppose  to  be  of  equal  authority  with  the  ar- 
ticles, or  any  part  of  the  church  service.*  In  the 
second  Homily  concerning  the  death  and  passion  of 
our  Saviour,  it  is  stated,  "When  our  great  grand 
father  Adam  had  broken  God's  commandment,  in 
eating  the  apple  forbidden  him  in  Paradise,  at  the 
motion  and   suggestion  of  his  wife,    he   purchased 

*  By  an  order  of  the  convention  in  1801,  the  reading  of  the  Ho- 
milies in  churches  was  suspended,  till  a  revision  of  them  could  be 
"conveniently  made  for  the  clearing  of  them,  as  well  from  obsolete 
words  and  phrases,  as  from  local  references."  Nothing  more 
seems  to  have  been  done  till  1814,  when  the  convention  "proposed 
to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  to  make  a  standing  order  to 
every  bishop,  and  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  every  state  des- 
titute of  a  bishop,  to  be  furnished,  as  soon  as  may  be,  with  a  copy 
or  copies,  of  said  work,  and  to  require  it  to  be  studied  by  all  can- 
didates for  the  ministry  within  their  respective  bounds." 

In  consequence  of  this  resolve  of  the  convention,  an  edition  of 
the  Homilies  was  speedily  published  in  New-York,  but  without  al- 
teration.   It  was  printed  literally  from  the  last  Oxford  edition. 


115 

thereby  not  only  to  himself ^  but  also  to  his  posterity 
forever,  the  just  wrath  and  indignation  of  God,  who, 
according  to  his  former  sentence  pronounced  at  the 
giving  of  the  commandment,  condemned  both  him  and 
all  his  to  everlasting  death,  both  of  body  and  soul; — 
he  was  cast  out  of  Paradise,  he  was  no  longer  a  citi- 
zen of  heaven,  but  a  firebrand  of  hell,  and  a  bond 
slave  of  the  devil."  <'Man  of  his  own  nature  is  fleslily 
and  carnal,  corrupt  and  naught,  sinful  and  disobedi- 
ent to  God,  without  any  spark  of  goodness  in  him, 
without  any  virtuous  or  godly  motion,  only  given  to 
evil  thoughts  and  wicked  deeds."* 

Again,  in  the  second  part  of  the  Homily  of  the 
Misery  of  Man,  we  read;  "Of  ourselves  we  be  crab- 
trees,  that  can  bring  forth  no  apples.  W  e  be  of  our- 
selves of  such  earth  as  can  bring  forth  but  weeds, 
nettles,  briers,  cockle,  and  darnel, — Hitherto  have 
we  heard  what  we  are  of  ourselves;  very  sinful, 
wretched,  and  damnable;  we  are  not  able  to  think  a 
good  thought  or  work  a  good  deed,  so  that  we  can 
find  in  ourselves  no  hope  of  salvation,  but  rather 
whatsoever  maketh  unto  our  destruction." 

And  again,  after  describing  the  deplorable  condi- 
tion into  which  Adam  was  brought  by  the  fall,  the 
Homily  continues;  "This  so  great  and  miserable  a 
plague,  if  it  had  only  rested  on  Adam,  who  first  of- 
fended, it  had  been  so  much  the  easier,  and  might 
the  better  have  been  borne.  But  it  fell  not  only  on 
him,  but  also  on  his  posterity  and  children  for  ever, 
so  that  the  whole  brood  of  Adam's  flesh  should  sus- 
tain the  self  same  fall  and  punishment,  which  their 

'*^  Homily  for  Whitsundav,  Part.  t. 


116 

forefather  by  his  offence  most  justly  had  deserved. — As 
in  Adam  all  men  universally  sinned,  so  in  Adam  all 
men  universally  received  the  reward  of  sin;  that  is  to 
say,  became  mortal,  and  subject  unto  death,  having 
in  themselves  nothing  but  everlasting  damnation  both 
of  body  and  soul; — they  were  nothing  else  but  chil- 
dren of  perdition,  partakers  of  hell  fire."* 

Quotations  to  the  same  effect  from  the  Homilies 
might  be  multiplied.  These  are  enough.  Where 
is  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  Calvinism  expressed 
in  stronger  language?  You  will  search  the  Institutes 
in  vain  to  find  a  parallel.  What  is  the  total  depra- 
vity of  man,  if  it  be  not  to  be  "of  his  own  nature 
without  any  spark  of  goodness  in  him,  without  any 
virtuous  or  godly  motion?"  Are  we  not  totally  de- 
praved in  the  most  absolute  sense,  if  "we  are  of  our- 
selves very  sinful,  wretched  and  damnable, — not  able 
either  to  think  a  good  thought,  or  work  a  good  deed?" 
How  will  you  express  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt 
to  his  posterity,  if  it  be  not  contained  in  the  following 
words;  namely,  "he  purchased  not  only  to  himself,  but 
also  to  his  posterity  for  ever,  the  just  wrath  and  indig- 
nation of  God?"  And  again;  "this  great  and  misera- 
ble plague  fell  not  only  on  him,  but  also  on  his  pos- 
terity and  children  for  ever.^^ 

When  you  consider  these  express  declarations  of 
the  Articles  and  Homilies,  how  can  you  imply,  as 
you  have  done,  that  "the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  as  the  cause  of  their  con- 
demnation to  eternal  punishment,"  (p.  27.)  is  not  a 
doctrine  of  the  church?     On  what  grounds  could  Dr. 

*  Homily  of  the  Nativity. 


117 

How,  who  has  attempted  so  elaborately  to  vindicate 
the  church  against  the  charge  of  Calvinism,  make  the 
Very  broad  assertion,  that  <nhere  is  not  a  trace  of  this 
doctrine  in  our  Articles,  our  Homilies,  or  our  Pray- 
ers?^'* Such  assertions  will  be  received  by  those 
only,  who  never  read  the  Articles,  or  look  into  the  Ho- 
milies. It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  any  writer  should 
venture  to  hazard  them;  for  if  the  Homilies  should  ever 
be  read  constantly  in  churches,  as  the  xlrticles  enjoin, 
the  people  must  soon  discover  them  to  be  groundless. 
In  a  word,  if  the  total  depravity  of  man,  and  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  be  not  doctrines 
of  the  church,  it  will  be  impossible  to  ascertain  from 
its  Articles,  Service,  and  Homilies,  any  one  doctrine, 
which  can  be  called  such. 

On  the  other  fundamental  doctrine  of  Calvinism, 
the  seventeenth  article  of  the  church  is  full  and  deci- 
sive.    It  is  comprised  in  the  following  words. 

^'Predestination  to  life  is  the  everlasting  purpose 
of  God,  whereby,  (before  the  foundations  of  the  world 
were  laid)  he  hath  constantly  decreed,  by  his  counsel, 
secret  to  us,  to  deliver  from  curse  and  damnation, 
those  whom  he  hath  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind, 
and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation, 
as  vessels  made  to  honour.  Wherefore  they,  which 
be  endued  with  so  excellent  a  benefit  of  God,  be  cal- 
led according  to  God's  purpose,  by  his  spirit  working 
in  due  season;  tliey  through  grace  obey  the  calling; 
they  be  justified  freely;  they  be  made  sons  of  God  by 
adoption;  they  be  made  like  the  image  of  his  only  be- 
gotten son  Jesus   Christ;   they  walk  religiously  in 

*  How's  Vindication,  p.  25P-. 
16 


118 

good  works;  and  at  length  by  God's  mercy  they  at- 
tain to  everlasting  felicity. 

"As  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination,  and 
our  election  in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and 
unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  persons,  and  such  as 
feel  in  themselves  the  working  of  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly 
members,  and  drawing  np  their  mind  to  high  and 
heavenly  things,  as  well,  because  it  doth  greatly  es- 
tablish and  confirm  their  faith  of  eternal  salvation,  to 
be  enjoyed  through  Christ,  as  because  it  doth  fer- 
vently kindle  their  love  towards  God;  so,  for  curious 
and  carnal  persons,  lacking  the  spirit  of  Christ,  to 
have  continually  before  their  eyes  the  sentence  of 
God's  predestination,  is  a  most  dangerous  downfall, 
whereby  the  devil  doth  thrust  them  either  into  des- 
peration, or  into  wretchlessness  of  most  unclean  living, 
no  less  perilous  than  desperation. 

"Furthermore,  we  must  receive  God's  promises 
in  such  wise,  as  they  be  generally  set  forth  in  holy 
scripture;  and  in  our  doings,  that  will  of  God  is  to  be 
followed,  which  we  have  expressly  declared  unto  us 
in  the  word  of  God." 

He  must  look  with  very  partial  eyes,  who  will  dis- 
cover this  article  to  be  less  explicit,  less  unequivocal, 
or  less  positive,  on  the  doctrine  of  election,  than  the 
language,  which  is  usually  found  in  calvinistic  books. 
Let  this  article  be  read  by  any  one,  who  has  no 
knowledge  of  the  explanations,  which  it  has  received 
from  anti-calvinistic  interpreters,  and  do  you  believe 
he  will  suspect  for  a  moment,  that  it  is  not  intended 
to  teach  the  doctrine  of  absolute  decrees? 


119 

Compare  the  first  part  of  the  article  with  the  follow- 
ing words  taken  from  the  calvinistic  Confession  of 
Faith.  "Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated 
unto  life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was 
laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immutable  purpose, 
and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will, 
hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting  glory.''*  Do 
you  not  perceive  a  striking  similarity  here,  not  only  in 
ideas,  but  in  words?  The  Calvinists  have  enlarged 
more  fully,  and  manfully  carried  out  and  defended 
this  doctrine,  but  the  root,  the  substance  of  the  whole, 
is  as  clearly  contained  in  the  seventeenth  article,  as  it 
is  in  the  Institutes,  the  Calvinistic  Confession,  or  the 
decisions  of  the  Synod  at  Dort. 

You  have  remarked,  with  others  of  the  Arminian 
school,  that  nothing  is  said  in  the  article  about  repro- 
bation. Why  should  any  thing  be  said?  This  makes 
no  part  of  the  doctrine  itself;  but  is  only  a  conse- 
quence. If  it  has  been  decreed  by  "the  everlasting 
purpose  of  God,"  that  a  certain  number  shall  be  de- 
livered "from  curse  and  damnation,"  nothing  is  more 
evident,   than  that  the  remainder  must  be  reprobate. 

You  have  said,  also,  that  the  article  "has  reference 
to  the  general  election  of  the  church,  as  the  recipient 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  not  an  allusion  to  the 
future  state  of  individuals."  p.  27.  From  what  part 
of  the  article  can  such  an  inference  be  drawn?  This 
may  be  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  but  what  do  you  find 
in  the  article,  which  will  give  any  sanction  to  such  a 
construction?  All,  who  are  elected,  are  to  be  ^^deliver- 
ed from  curse  and  damnation;^'  and  is  it  your  opinion^ 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  cliap,  iii.  5  5. 


1^0 

that  every  individual  of  the  church  is  to  be  of  this 
description?  And  what  is  this  "curse  and  damna- 
tion," but  the  future  punishment  of  individuals? 
Would  these  terms  be  used  in  reference  to  a  whole 
church  receiving  the  covenant  of  grace?  Can  they  be 
used  in  reference  to  any  thing,  but  the  future  state  of 
individuals?  'jl'he  article  goes  upon  the  supposition, 
that  all  by  riature  are  under  a  curse,  and  declares, 
that  a  certain  number,  by  the  decrees  of  God,  are  de- 
livered from  this  curse:  and  it  is  difficult  to  tell  what 
calvinistic  election  is,  more  or  less  than  this.  It  is  an 
absolute  and  arbitrary  election;  for  it  is  expressly  stated 
to  be  according  to  ^Hhe  everlasting  pm'jwse  of  GodJ* 
Nor  is  any  thing  said  of  its  being  made  in  conse- 
quence of  a  foreknowledge  of  conduct. 

No  one  can  deny,  that  bishop  Burnet  has  examined 
this  article  with  the  greatest  fairness  and  candour. 
He  has  pointed  out  with  precision  and  acuteness  the 
different  sentiments,  which  have  been  held  on  the  doc« 
trine  of  election,  and  iilthough  his  own  opinions  were 
uot  calvinistic,  he  says  of  this  article,  "It  is  not  to 
be  denied  but  that  the  doctrine  seems  to  be  framed  ac» 
cording  to  St.  Austin's  doctrine.  It  supposes  men  to 
be  under  a  curse  and  damnation,  antecedently  to  pre- 
destination." After  exhibiting  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties with  which  they  had  to  contend,  who  would  ex- 
plain the  article  in  a  different  way,  he  goes  on  to  re- 
mark;  "on  the  other  hand,  the  Calvinists  have  less 
occasion  to  scruple,  since  the  article  does  seem  more 
plainly  to  favour  themJ^*  This  is  the  testimony  of  a 
man,  who  has  written  more  judiciously,  and  with  mors 

'Burnet's  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  Art.  xviu 


taleut  probably  on  the  articles,  tlian  any  other,  and 
whose  opinion  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  election, 
was  actually  contrary  to  the  decision  of  his  candour 
and  judgment  on  the  doctrine  of  the  article. 

In  the  (Jollcct  for  All-Saints' Day  it  is  said;  ^^who 
has  knit  together  thine  elect  in  one  communion  and 
fellowship,  in  the  mystical  body  of  thy  son."  The 
following  passages  are  contained  in  the  English 
Prayer  Book,  but  left  out  of  the  American,  for  reasons 
best  known  to  the  members  of  the  convention,  as  they 
contain  nothing  more  on  the  doctrine  of  election,  than 
what  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  seventeenth  article. 
Thus,  in  the  Catechism,  the  child  is  made  to  say,  <»1 
believe  in  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  sanctifieth  me, 
and  all  the  elect  people  of  God."  In  the  burial  ser- 
vice is  the  following  petition, — '^beseeching  thee, 
shortly  to  accomplish  the  number  of  thine  elect,  and 
to  hasten  thy  kingdom."  If  I  mistake  not,  these 
phrases  are  very  similar  to  those  often  used  by  Cal- 
vinists,  and  why  should  we  not  take  them  in  the  same 
sense. 

In  the  Homily  on  Alms  Deeds  we  are  told  of 
those,  "whom  God  hath  apjjointed  to  everlasting  sal- 
vation^'' who  are  "the  undoubted  children  of  God, 
appointed  to  everlasting  life;''  and  who  "are  sons  of 
God,  and  elect  of  him  unto  salvation."* 

Such  are  the  evidences  drawn  from  the  Articles, 
Homilies  and  Service  of  the  Church.  If  any  one  can 
read  these  extracts  and  not  be  convinced,  that  the  fun- 
damental  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  namely,  total  depra- 
liityf  with  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  election, 

*  Homilies,  New-York,  1815.  p.  329, 


13S 

are  clearly  taught  in  them,  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
it  were  possible  for  language  to  be  so  constructed  as  to 
produce  conviction.  Every  man  does  not  examine  wifh 
so  much  freedom  from  prejudice,  perhaps,  as  bishop 
Burnet,  nor  with  so  determined  a  resolution  to  make  his 
own  opinions  consistent  with  the  scriptures,  and  to  let 
the  articles  speak  in  their  natural  language,  without 
endeavouring  to  press  them  into  his  service  by  force. 
Jf  a  man  has  settled  it  in  his  mind  that  an  article, 
partly  ambiguous,  and  partly  metaphysical,  shall  have 
a  particular  meaning,  it  is  no  difficult  task  to  give  it  a 
plausible  turn  into  any  direction  he  pleases.  When 
he  deserts  the  plain  construction,  and  goes  into  ex- 
planations merely  possible,  he  at  onte  leaves  the  sus- 
picion, that  he  is  not  so  much  concerned  to  ascertain 
the  meaning  of  the  article,  as  to  determine  in  what 
way  it  can  be  best  explained  to  support  the  opinions, 
which  he  has  already  formed  from  other  sources. 

You  suppose,  that  the  closing  part  of  the  article 
does  away  the  possibility  of  proving  from  the  first 
part  the  calvinistic  doctrine  of  election.  It  is  there 
said,  "that  will  of  God  is  to  be  followed,  which  we 
have  expressly  declared  to  us  in  the  word  of  God.'^ 
This  you  think  is  not  consistent  with  Calvinism;  and 
therefore,  no  part  of  the  article  can  be  considered 
calvinistic.  But  let  me  ask,  if  every  sincere  Calvin- 
ist  does  not  believe  his  sentiments  to  be  according  to 
what  is  "expressly  declared  in  the  word  of  God?'' 
The  Calvinist,  as  well  as  the  Arminian,  will  acknow- 
ledge the  truth  and  force  of  this  clause  of  the  article, 
whatever  construction  he  may  give  to  any  other  part. 
The  person  who  receives  the  article  in  its  literal 
sense,  and  sees  in  it   the  doctrine   of  election  in  its 


133 

most  decided  form,  will  receive  the  last  clause,  as  one 
of  the  first  rules,  which  is  to  guide  him  in  the  search 
of  religious  truth. 

You  also  intimate,  that  the  doctrine  of  election  can- 
not belong  to  the  church,  because  it  is  taught  in  the 
articles,  that  "the  offering  of  Christ  was  made  for  all 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  Would  you  infer  from 
this,  that  Calvinists  do  not  hold  to  the  same  be- 
lief? Do  not  all  christians  of  every  denomination 
believe,  that  "the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto 
justification  of  life."  Rom.  v.  1. — that  Christ  *'is  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world.^^  1  John,  ii.  2. — and  that 
God  "would  have  all  men  to  be  saved?"  1  Tim.  ii.  4. 
Calvinists  will  not  reject  these  texts  of  scripture. 
They  will  not  deny,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  suf- 
ficient to  take  away  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  It 
is  not  the  sufficiency  of  the  sacrifice  for  the  salvation 
of  all,  which  they  deny,  but  the  fact,  that  all  will  re- 
ceive the  benefit  of  this  sacrifice.  All  you  have  said, 
therefore,  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  Articles 
and  Church  Service,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
Calvinism.  The  church  believes,  as  you  say,  that 
Christ  by  his  death  ^^made  a  satisfaction  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world;"  Calvinists  believe  the  same. 

1  do  not  pretend  to  reconcile  inconsistencies  in  the 
articles.  Upon  the  calvinistic  scheme  they  are  suffi- 
ciently consistent.  If  you  make  some  of  them  direct- 
ly opposed  to  Calvinism,  while  others  maintain  the 
great  doctrines  of  this  faith,  you  put  them  at  an  irre- 
concileable  variance.  This  perplexity  will  be  avoided 
by  taking  them  in  their  natural  sense. 


121 

There  needs  no  stronger  argument,  in  favour  of  the 
aviicles  and  formularies  of  the  church  being  entirely 
calvinistic,  than  the  fact  that  every  Calvinist  will 
receive  all  of  them,  which  have  any  bearing  on  doc- 
trines, without  limitation  or  paraphrase. 

Bishop  White  and  Dr.  How  have  been  at  much 
pains  to  show,  that  the  original  reformers  were  not 
Calvinists.  But  are  not  their  labours  somewhat  gra- 
tuitous? It  is  not  the  opinions  of  Cranmer,  or  Ridley, 
or  Hooper,  or  Latimer,  which  tiie  humble  christian 
now  searches  after,  when  he  consults  his  Prayer 
Book,  but  the  sentiments  conveyed  in  the  articles 
themselves.  He  is  not  called  on  by  the  church  to  be- 
lieve  what  Cranmer  believed,  but  what  the  articles 
contain.  It  will  only  perplex  and  confound  him  to 
accumulate  a  mass  of  evidence  to  prove,  that  such 
were  the  opinions  of  one  reformer,  and  such  of  anoth- 
er. If  the  Prayer  Book  will  not  explain  itself,  it 
were  better  to  lay  it  aside,  and  adopt  one  that  will, 
than  to  go  back  three  hundred  years  to  the  troublous 
times  of  the  reformation,  to  know  what  religious 
tenets  were  then  agitating  the  world. 

But  after  the  elaborate  efforts  of  these  writers  to 
prove,  that  the  sentiments  of  the  reformers  were  not 
calvinistic,  few,  probably,  who  are  not  iniluenced  by 
some  previous  bias,  will  be  conducted  from  their 
premises  to  the  same  conclusions.  The  subject  is  ex- 
amined by  bishop  White  in  particular,  with  no  com- 
mon degree  of  ability,  and  with  that  temper  of  chris- 
tian moderation  and  candour,  which  is  consistent  with 
his  character  To  my  mind,  however,  his  success 
has  not  been  equal  to  the  talents  and  learning  he  has 
displayed.     The  following  passage,  which  he  quotes 


135 

from  Mosheim,  and  endeavours  to  answer,  is  strongly 
against  him.  "When  it  was  proposed  under  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI.  to  give  a  fixed  and  stable  form  to  the 
doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  church,  Geneva  was 
acknowledged  as  a  sister  church;  and  the  theological 
system  there  established  by  Calvin  was  adopted,  and 
rendered  the  public  rule  of  faith  in  England."*  The 
bishop  replies  to  this,  by  questioning  the  authority  of 
Moshiera,  and  says  he  probably  quoted  from  Neal, 
who  is  not  always  to  be  trusted.  But  it  is  hardly  fair 
to  elude,  in  this  way,  the  testimony  of  one  of  the 
most  impartial  and  candid  writers,  who  has  ever  writ- 
ten on  ecclesiastical  history.  Whether  he  took  it  from 
Neal  or  not,  we  can  scarcely  be  allowed  to  suppose;, 
that  a  writer  so  remarkable  for  accuracy  should  speak 
in  so  unqualified  a  manner  of  the  theological  tenets 
of  a  national  church,  without  being  fully  convinced, 
that  he  was  speaking  from  the  best  authority;  espe- 
cially when  it  is  considered,  that  it  was  a  case  in 
which  no  prejudice  or  feelings  of  his  own  could  in- 
terfere. 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  exposition  of  the  seventeenth 
article,  seems  to  countenance  the  representation  of 
Mosheim.  "In  England,'^  says  he,  "the  first  reform- 
ers were  generally  in  the  Sublapsarian  hypothesis." 
This  hypothesis  embraced  all  the  essential  doctrines 
of  Calvinism;  and  although  the  name  of  Sublapsa- 
rians  was  not  given  to  any  sect  of  christians  till  after 
the  reformation,  yet  if  the  bishop  means  any  thing,  he 
must  be  supposed  te  mean,  that  the  leading  tenets  of 

*  Bishop  White's  Comparative  Views  of  the  Controversy  be- 
-tween  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  Vol.  ii.  p.  4, 

17 


1^6 

the  reformers  were  similar  to  those  of  the  Sublapsa- 
rians;  that  is,  they  were  calvinistic. 

Furthermore,  it  is  well  known,  that  archbishop 
Cranmer,  the  chief  of  the  English  reformers,  and  M'ho 
drew  up  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  wrote 
to  Calvin  requesting  his  aid,  and  that  a  correspon- 
dence was  kept  up  between  them.  It  is  well  known 
also,  that  Calvin  wrote  to  king  Edward  VI.  while 
Cranmer  was  engaged  in  forming  the  articles.  Is  it 
probable,  that  such  an  intimacy  would  have  existed 
at  this  time,  and  that  a  familiar  correspondence  on 
these  subjects  would  have  been  carried  on,  unless  the 
religious    sentiments   of    the    parties    were    similar? 

xVnother  argument  to  prove  the  sentiments  of  the  lead- 
ing reformers  to  have  been  calvinistic,  is  drawn  from 
their  own  writings,  and  from  writings  which  tUey  ap- 
proved.  King  Edward's  Catechism,  or  as  it  was  af- 
terwards called,  Dr.  NoweFs  Catechism,  was  approv- 
ed by  Cranmer  and  Ridley,  if  not  in  part  made  by 
them.*  This  catechism  contains  the  following  words, 
<^As  many  as  were  in  this  faith  steadfast,  were  fore- 
chosen,  predestinated,  and  appointed  to  everlasting 
life  before  the  world  was  made.^'\ 

In  Latimer's  Sermons  it  is  said,  ^^We  must  needs 
grant  ourselves  to  be  in  like  displeasure  unto  God,  as 
our  father  Adam  was.     By  reason  hereof  we  be  of 

^  This  Catechism  "was  subscribed  by  those  martyrs  for  the  pro- 
testant  fitith,  archbishop  Cranmer  and  bishop  Ridley,  and  ordered 
to  be  taught  in  schools  tliroughout  tlie  "kingdom." — Sir  Richard 
Hill's  Apology,  page  25. 

t  See  a  work  entitled,  "Calvin  in  Harmony  with  the  Fathers  and 
Reformers;  by  a  Layman."  p.  1S6. 


127 

ourselves,  the  very  children  of  the  indignation  and  ven- 
geance of  God.^'*  These  sentiments  are  expressed 
still  more  decidetlly  in  the  marginal  notes  of  the 
^'Great  Bible/^  published  under  the  direction  of  Cran- 
mer,  in  1549.  ^'Our  election  is  by  grace,  and  not  by 
worlis.  Few  are  elect  or  chosen.  We  are  elect  of 
God  the  father,  througli  his  good  will  before  the  con- 
struction of  tlie  world,  that  by  the  grace  and  merit  of 
Christ,  we  should  have  health,  serving  all  men  by 
charity.  The  elect  cannot  be  accused,  forasmuch 
as  God  justifieth  them.  The  predestinate  are  saints 
or  holy  people,  made  like  to  the  image  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  called,  justified  and  glorified  by  him.''f  In 
the  ^'Bishop's  Bible,"  published  in  15G8,  the  same 
doctrine  is  found.  In  a  note  on  Rom.  xi.  35,  it  is 
said,  ^'By  this  the  apostle  declareth,  that  God  by  his 
free  will  and  election,  doth  give  salvation  unto  men, 
ivithout  any  deserts  of  their  ownJ'X  In  the  "Quarto 
Bible,"  printed  1576,  is  contained  the  following  note 
on  Matth.  xxv.  34.  "Hereby  God  declareth  the  cer- 
tainty of  our  predestination;  whereby  we  are  saved, 
because  we  were  chosen  in  Christ  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world;"  and  on  Mark  xiii.  2'Z.  "The  elect 
may  waiver  and  be  troubled,  but  they  cannot  utterly 
be  deceived  or  overcome."^ 

In  the  work  here  referred  to,  many  other  extracts 
of  a  similar  nature  may  be  seen.  The  Bibles  above- 
mentioned  were  published  under  the  express  direction 
of  the  first  reformers,  and  the  clergy  of  those  times. 
After  reading  these  extracts,  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 

"^Calvin  in  Harmony  with  the  Fathers,  &c.  p.  139. 
i  Tb.  145.  t  P-  14G.  §  p.  14^. 


138 

doubt  of  the  tenets  of  the  reformers,  who  framed  and 
adopted  the  Articles  of  the  Church.  We  can  have 
no  better  authority,  than  their  own  writings,  or  books 
which  came  out  under  their  sanction.  Dr.  Heylin, 
who  was  an  anti-calvinist,  and  whom  the  bishop  of 
Lincoln  quotes  with  approbation,  gives  his  testimony, 
in  his  Life  of  Laud,  to  the  prevalence  of  the  calvinistic 
tenets  m  the  time  of  queen  Elizabeth.  ^^Predestina- 
tion," says  he,  "and  the  points  depending  thereupon, 
were  received  as  the  established  doctrines^  of  the 
Church  of  England/^  And  speaking  of  the  seven- 
teenth article,  he  says,  that  the  predestination  there 
defined,  "doth  presuppose  a  curse  and  state  of  dam- 
nation, in  which  all  mankind  was  presented  to  the 
sight  of  God; — that  it  was  of  some  special  ones  alone, 
elect,  called  forth,  and  reserved  in  Christ,  and  not 
generally  extended  to  all  mankind."* 

The  same  sentiments  prevailed  at  the  universities 
in  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I.  which  ap- 
pears by  the  Theses,  that  were  maintained  at  them  by 
candidates  for  the  degree  of  doctor  in  divinity.  The 
following  are  selected  from  those,  which  were  main- 
tained at  Oxford. 

"The  salvation  of  the  elect  is  perfect,  so  that  they 
cannot  perish." 

'"^The  whole  salvation  of  the  elect  is  purely  gra- 
tuitous." 

<' Whether  election  be  from  works  foreseen?  De- 
nied."t 

*See  Calvin  in  Harmony  with  the  Fathers,  &c.  p.  113,  164. 

t  Electorum  certa  est  salus,  perire  non  possint. 

Tota  salus  electorum  est  mere  gratuita. 

An  ekctio  sit  ex  prcevisis  operihus?  JSTeg. — lb.  p.  166,  168. 


129 

la  the  time  of  queen  Mary,  certain  persons,  who 
were  imprisoned  on  account  of  their  religious  senti- 
ments, were  accused  of  denying  the  doctrines  of  pre- 
destination and  original  sin.  Bradford,  prebendary 
of  St.  PauPs,  visited  them  in  prison,  and  endeavoured 
to  convince  them  of  their  errors,  but  without  avail. 
Being  "apprehensive  that  they  would  do  a  great  deal 
of  mischief  in  the  church,  he,  in  concert  with  bishop 
Ferrar,  Taylor,  and  Philpot,  wrote  to  Cranmer,  Rid- 
ley, and  Latimer,  at  Oxford,  to  take  some  cognizance 
of  the  matter,  and  consult  together  about  remedying 
it.  Upon  this  occasion  Ridley  wrote  back  a  letter 
Of  God'' s  Election  and  Predestination,  and  Bradford 
wrote  another  upon  the  same  subject."*  Is  it  probable 
that  Bradford  would  have  written  such  a  letter  to 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer,  had  it  not  been  well 
known,  that  they  believed  in  predestination? 

The  Lambeth  Articles  are  usually  quoted  as  another 
proof  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  English  churcii,  and  not 
without  reason.  Some  diflBculties,  it  seems,  had 
arisen  among  the  officers  and  professors  of  the  Uni- 
versity at  Cambridge  on  certain  points  of  doctrine, 
which  were  referred  to  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury. He,  in  conjunction  with  the  archbishop  of 
York,  the  bishop  of  London,  the  dean  of  Ely,  and 
other  dignitaries  of  the  church,  assembled  at  the  ar- 
chiepiscopal  palace  in  Lambeth,  November  tenth, 
1595,  drew  up  a  number  of  articles,  which  were  sent 
to  the  University,  as  *nhe  avowed  sense  of  the  church 
of  England."  Among  these  articles  were  the  fol 
lowing. 

*Neal's  Ilistorj  of  the  Puritans,  Loud.  1732,  Vol.  1.  p.  103: 


130 

^<God  from  eternity  hath  predesthiated  certain  men 
liuto  life;  certain  men  he  hath  reprobated." 

"There  is  predetermined  a  certain  number  of  tlie 
predestinate,  which  can  neitlier  be  augmented,  nor  di- 
minished." 

*'Those  who  are  not  predestinated  unto  salvation 
shall  necessarily  be  damned  for  their  sins." 

Heylin  says,  the  queen  was  much  offended  at  these 
articles,  and  caused  the  archbishop  to  recal  them. 
But  from  his  own  account  it  is  obvious,  that  her  of- 
fence arose  not  so  much  from  her  disapprobation  of 
the  articles,  as  from  tbe  presumption  of  the  archbi- 
shop in  framing  them  without  consulting  her,  and  in 
promulgating  tliem  without  her  authority.*  Nor  w  as 
her  being  offended  any  evidence,  that  they  did  not 
express  the  prevailing  sentiments  of  the  church. 
Where  shall  we  look  for  the  sense  of  the  church,  if 
not  to  the  opinions  of  its  highest  dignitariesPf 

*  This  oifence  of  queen  Elizabeth,  was  consistent  with  her 
imperious  temper  in  regard  to  all  theological  concerns.  The 
ecclesiastical  court,  which  she  established  under  the  charge  of 
this  same  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was  little  inferior,  in  its  seve- 
rities and  injustice,  to  the  inquisition  itself.  And  after  the  Com- 
mons, in  a  petition  to  the  prelates,  had  made  some  complaints  of 
their  grievances,  the  queen  reproved  them  severely  for  their  pre- 
sumption. In  a  speech  from  the  throne,  "she  told  them,  that 
whoever  found  fault  with  the  church  threw  a  slander  upon  her, 
since  she  was  appointed  by  God  supreme  ruler  over  it;  and  no 
heresies  or  schisms  could  prevail  in  the  kingdom  but  by  her  per- 
mission and  negligence." — Hume's  History  of  England,  vol.  v.  p. 
269.  See  also  Camden's  History  of  the  Reign  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, Lond.  1675,  p.  454. 

tSee  the  Lambeth  Articles  at  large  in  the  bishop  of  Lincoln's 
Refutation  of  Calvinism,  p.  560,  quoted  from  Heylin's  Quinquar- 
ticular  History.    Also,  Hill's  Apology  for  the  Doctrines  of  the 


131 

Neal  says,  in  alluding  to  the  controversy,  which 
t'omraenced  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  "All  the 
Protestant  divines  in  the  church,  whether  puritans, 
or  others,  seemed  of  one  mind  hitherto  about  the  doc- 
trines of  faith,  but  now  there  arose  a  party,  which 
were  first  for  softening,  and  then  for  overthrowing  the 
received  opinions  about  predestination,  perseverance, 
free  will,  effectual  grace,  and  the  extent  of  our  Sa- 
viour's redemption.  Tlie  articles  of  the  church  of 
England,  were  thought  by  all  men  hitherto,  to  favour 
the  explication  of  Calvin;  but  these  divines  would 
make  them  stand  neuter,  and  leave  a  latitude  for  the 
subscriber  to  take  either  side  of  the  question."  And 
again;  "The  divines  of  Oxford,  and  indeed  all  the 
first  reformers,  were  in  the  same  sentiments  with 
those  of  Cambridge  about  the  disputed  points;  Cal- 
vin's Institutions  being  read  publicly  in  tlie  schools 
by  appointment  of  the  convocation/'* 

Another  evidence  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  English 
church  at  an  early  period,  is  the  part  it  took  in  the 
famous  Synod  of  Dort.  The  express  purpose  of  this 
Synod  was  to  establish,  by  the  greatest  weight  ef  au- 
thoi'ity^  the  peculiar  tenets  of  Calvinism,  and  to  adopt 

church  of  England,  in  Letters  to  tlie  Rev.  Charles  Daubney, 
p.  88. 

In  the  letter  written  on  this  occasion  by  the  vice-chancellor, 
and  heads  of  the  University,  to  the  chancellor,  they  say,  "we  are 
right  sorry  to  have  such  occasion  to  trouble  your  lordship,  as  th? 
peace  of  this  University  being  brought  into  peril  by  the  late  re- 
viving of  new  opinions."  &c. — Strype's  Annals,  vol.  iv.  fol.  p.  229, 
These  new  opinions  were  the  anti-calvinistic  tenets,  which  were 
then  beginning  to  spring  up  in  the  University. 

*  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  i.  p.  5T9,  584... 


13^ 

cilectuai  measures  for  suppressing  the  rising  heresy 
of  Arminiiis,  which  was  found  to  be  increasing  to  an 
alarming  degree.  The  Synod  was  composed  of  nu- 
merous delegates  from  different  parts  of  Holland, 
Germany,  from  Geneva,  and  Great  Britain.  The 
five  points  of  Calvinism  were  each  separately  consi- 
dered, and  judged  without  a  dissenting  voice  "to  be 
agreeable  to  God's  word."*  They  next  proceeded  re- 
ligiously to  excommunicate  all  remonstrants,  or  fol- 
lowers of  Arminius,  as  persons,  who  ^'must  of  neces- 
sity be  punished  with  a  very  severe  censure,  such  as 
hath  in  all  ages  been  infflicted  by  the  church  in  such 
cases."!  The  last  act  of  their  synodical  delibera- 
tions, was  to  excommunicate  Conrad  Yorstius,  a  pro- 
fessor of  Leyden,  and  teacher  of  Arminianism;  and  to 
prooure  a  decree  of  banishment  against  him  from  the 
states-general  of  Holland.^ 

Is  it  not  absurd  to  suppose,  that  this  delegation 
would  have  been  sent  from  the  English  church,  if  the 
church  itself  were  not  calvinistic?  The  object  of  the 

*  In  the  Title  to  these  articles,  they  are  said  to  contain  a  doc- 
trine, "quam  synod  us  Dovdi-ec\\ta.iia,  verba  Dei  consentaneam,  a.t' 
que  in  Ecclesiis  Reformatis  hactenus  receptam  esse,  judicat." 
Vide  Sylloge  Confessionum  sub  tempus  Reformandse  Ecclesise 
editarum.et  c^et.  Oxon.  1804,  p.  369. 

t  See  "The  Judgment  of  the  Synod  holden  at  Dort,  concern- 
ing the  Five  Articles;  as  also  their  sentence  touching  Conradus 
Voistius,"     Lond.  I6l9,p.90. 

J  Among  other  heinous  offences  charged  against  Vorstius,  he  was 
accused  of  "making  bold"  with  such  doctrines  "as  concerne  the 
tiinitie  of  persons  in  the  godhead — the  hypostaticall  union — and 
■partly  avoc/ung  expressly  many  things  contrary  to  the  trueth  of 
God — either  wholly  consorting,  or  very  neere  bordering  upon  the 
blasphemies  of  the  balefull  heretique  Socinus."  p.  102,  103, 


133 

synod  was  well  known  beforehand;  and  none  of  the 
English  delegates  dissented  from  a  single  resolution 
that  passed  on  points  of  doctrine.  Nor  were  they 
ever  afterwilrds  charged  with  not  having  properly  re- 
presented their  church  in  this  respect.  As  they  were 
the  only  delegates  present  from  an  episcopal  churchf 
some  complaint  was  made  after  their  return,  because 
they  did  not  protest  against  certain  proceedings  relat- 
ing to  church  government;  but  they  vindicated  them- 
selves on  the  plea,  that  they  took  no  share  in  these 
proceedings,  and  felt  it  theii-  duty  to  act  only  on  sub- 
jects of  doctrine.  They  published  what  they  called 
a  "Joint  Attestation,"  in  which  they  explained  their 
motives,  and  vindicated  themselves  in  a  very  honour- 
able and  dignified  manner.  Their  closing  words  are 
worthy  of  notice  in  connexion  with  the  present  subject. 

"As  in  that  synod  our  special  care  and  perpetual 
endeavour  was  to  guide  our  judgments  by  that  sound 
doctrine^  which  we  had  received  from  the  Church  of 
England,  so  we  were  far,  and  ever  shall  be  from 
usurping  our  mother's  authority,  or  attempting  to  ob- 
trude upon  her  children  any  of  our  synodical  conclu- 
sions, as  obligatory  to  them;  yet  remaining  ourselves 
nevertheless  resolved,  that  whatsoever  was  assented 
unto,  or  subscribed  by  us  concerning  the  five  articles, 
is  not  only  warrantable  by  the  holy  scriptures,  hut 
also  conformable  to  the  received  doctrine  of  our  said 
venerable  mother.^^^ 

This  was  signed  by  the  bishop  of  Landaff,  and  the 
four  other  delegates,  who  were  sent  with  him  to  the 

*"x\Joint  Attestation,  avowing  that  the  Discipline  of  the  Church 
of  England  was  not  impeached  at  the  Sjnod  of  l)orf„"  Lond.  )Q-26. 
p.  25,  26. 


134 

Synod  of  Dort.  We  thus  have  not  only  the  presump- 
tive evidence,  that  the  church  was  calvinistic,  from 
the  circumstance  of  its  sending  delegates  to  this  synod, 
but  the  positive  testimony  of  the  delegates  them- 
selves, that  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  which  they  had 
given  their  voice  to  establish  in  the  synod,  were  such 
as  they  had  ^*receivedfrom  the  Church  of  England.''^ 
It  is  a  question,  which  may  with  propriety  be 
asked,  why  predestination  was  introduced  in  any 
shape  into  the  Articles  of  the  Church,  if  the  framers 
of  these  articles  did  not  believe  in  this  doctrine?  It  is 
found  neither  in  the  Augsburg  nor  tlje  Saxon  confes- 
sion, both  of  which  are  said  to  have  been  principally 
from  the  pen  of  Melaucthon.*  It  is  evident  from  these 
confessions,  that  the  doctrine  of  election  formed  no 
part  of  Melancthou's  creed.  Now  the  Arminian  inter- 
preters would  have  us  understand,  that  Cranmer  and 
his  associates  were  much  more  intimate  with  Melanc- 
thon  than  with  Calvin,  and  that  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion was  their  principal  model.  This  Confession  is 
silent  on  the  subject  of  predestination,  although  it  is 
full  on  all  the  other  important  points  of  Calvinism. 
It  maintains  the  doctrines  of  original  i?in,  the  depravi- 
ty of  human  nature,  the  entire  inability  of  man.  justi- 
fication by  faith,  salvation  by  grace,  and  the  vicarious 

*  Luther  could  not  appear  at  the  Diet  of  Au-rsburq;,  because  he 
had  been  proscribed  by  the  edict  of  Worms;  yet  he  remained  du- 
rina;  the  session  of  the  Diet,  in  the  neijrhbourinsr  town  of  Coburg 
where  "his  advice  was  constantly  sought."  Hence  the  Augsb'irg 
Confession  contained  the  sentiments  of  Luther,  as  well  as  Melanc- 
thon,  and  the  Gernaan  princes  by  whom  it  was  subscribed.  Cox's 
Life  of  Melancthon,  p.  304. 


135 

sacrifice  of  Christ.*  If  this  confession  were  the  niq- 
del  of  the  English  reformers,  why  should  they  insert 
an  article  expressly  on  election,  unless  they  thought 
this  doctrine  an  essential  addition?  The  kind  of  pre. 
destination  which  you  describe  as  being  iutended  by 
the  seventh  article  of  the  church,  was  probably  never 
thought  of  as  an  article  of  faith.  You  say  ^'it  has  re- 
ference to  the  general  election  of  the  church,  as  the 
recipient  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  not  an  allusion 
to  the  future  state  of  individuals."!  Something  like 
this,  perhaps,  was  the  opinion  of  Melaucthou  respect- 
ing the  scripture  account  of  election,  and  for  this  rea- 
son he  passed  it  over,  as  having  no  place  in  a  confes- 
sion of  faith.  But  do  you  believe  a  single  instance  can 
be  found,  in  any  formularies  of  faith,  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  election  is  introduced  without  alluding 
to  the  ^'future  state  of  individuals?"  That  the  sev- 
enteenth article  should  have  been  added  at  all,  is 
only  to  be  explained  on  the  supposition,  that  it  was  to 
be  understood  in  the  usual  acceptation  of  this  doctrine, 
as  it  was  already  expressed  in  the  well  known  con- 
fessions of  Basil,  Bohemia,  and  others. 

I  have  been  led  into  this  historical  detail  with  a 
view  to  trace  the  analogy  between  the  sentiments  of 
the  English  reformers,  and  the  plain  sense  of  the  ar- 
ticles of  the  church.  The  Arminian  interpreters, 
aware  that  the  articles  as  they  stand  are  cordially  re- 
ceived by  the  Calvinists,  and  considered  as  strong 
supports  of  their  doctrines,  are  fond  of  going  back  to 
the  reformers,  and  modifying  the  articles  by  what  they 

*  Sylloge  Confessionum,  p.  1  '^7. 
t  Sermon,  &c.  p.  27. 


136 

conceive  to  have  been  the  opinions  of  their  original  fra- 
mers.  They  have  never  informed  us,  however,  what 
reasons  they  have  for  supposing  that  these  persons 
took  pains  to  write  ambiguous  articles,  or  to  clothe 
them  in  a  langua?;e  expressing  opinions,  w  hich  they 
did  not  entertain.*  The  view,  which  has  just  been 
taken,  must  certainly  free  them  from  any  such  charge, 
and  leave  them  at  least  the  merit  of  consistency,  fair- 
ness and  honesty,  of  which  they  would  be  entitled  to 
a  very  small  share,  if  they  did  not  write  as  they  be- 
lieved, and  if  their  opinions  were  not  calvinistic.  We 
have  not  only  their  own  declarations,  but  the  ample 
testimony  of  cotemporary,  and  numerous  succeeding 
writers. 

I  cannot  close  these  remarks  on  the  articles  with- 
out noticing  one,  which  is  so  uncharitable  and  un- 
scriptural,  that  it  is  truly  astonishing  it  should  ever 
have  been  admitted  into  a  system  of  christian  faith. 
I  refer  to  the  ei2;hteenth  article,  in  which  it  is  said, 
"They  also  are  to  be  had  accursed,  that  presume  to  say, 
that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect 
Avhich  he  professeth,  so  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame 


*  Gilpin  thinks  it  probable,  that  Cranmer  in  constructing  the 
articles  was  "intentionally  ambiguous,"  and  that  "he  thought  it 
prudent  on  this  occasion  to  use  such  ivell  timed  ambiguity,  as 
might  give  as  little  oftence  as  possible!"  Gilpin's  Life  of  Cranmer, 
p.  155,  156,  This  was  a  singular  motive,  indeed,  to  guide  a  man 
in  forming  articles  of  religion,  which  were  to  be  the  rule  of  a  na- 
tion's faith,  and  to  which  the  whole  body  of  the  clergy  were  rcu.uir- 
ed  by  law  to  subsc  ribe.  Would  it  not  have  redounded  quite  as 
much  to  the  edification  of  the  church,  to  let  the  people  follow  the 
perspicuous  rules  of  scripture,  as  to  confound  them  in  the  da,rk 
mazes  and  ambiguous  phraseology  of  mystical  divinity? 


137 

his  life  according  to  that  law,  and  the  light  of  na- 
ture." Is  it,  then,  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  that  all 
persons*  wlio  lived  before  Christ,  and  all  who  shall 
live  after  him,  without  receiving  a  revelation,  and 
hearing  the  glad  tidings  of  his  religion,  are  to  have 
no  part  in  the  promise  of  salvation?  Is  this  just?  If 
they  act  according  to  the  law  and  light  they  possess, 
what  more  will  a  righteous  and  merciful  God  re- 
quire? Had  the  framers  of  this  article  forgotten  the 
parable  of  the  talents,  and  the  express  language 
of  the  apostle?  To  the  Romans  St.  Paul  writes, 
<^When  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these, 
having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves.'"  ii. 
14.  This  is  the  law  of  conscience  and  reason,  and 
when  the  man,  who  has  no  other  law,  acts  in  strict 
conformity  to  this,  what  authority  have  Ave  to  say, 
that  he  will  not  secure  the  favour  of  God?  The 
christian  will  be  judged  by  the  law  of  the  gospel;  the 
heathen,  who  never  heard  of  the  gospel,  by  the  law 
of  conscience.  "God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but 
in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  accepted  with  him."  Acts  x.  o5. 
The  article  not  only  implies,  that  no  individuals  of 
any  nation,  which  has  not  been  visited  with  the  light  of 
gospel  truth,  can  be  saved;  but  declares  that  they  are 
to  be  had  accursed,  who  even  presume  to  say,  that 
they  can  be  saved.  It  is  much  to  be  lamented,  that 
such  an  article  as  this  should  be  admitted  into  any 
formulary  of  christian  faith.  Nothing  can  be  more 
contrary  to  the  spirit  and  temper  every  where  mani- 
fested by  the  blessed  Jesus,  and  every  where  incul- 
cated in  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 


138 

After  the  examination,  which  has  been  made,  how 
can  the  conclusion  be  resisted,  that  the  sentiments  ad- 
vanced in  your  discourse,  respecting  the  doctrinal  char- 
acter of  tlie  articles  of  the  English  church,  are  strik- 
ingly inconsistent  with  the  church  service,  the  ho- 
milies, and  the  plain,  natural  sense  of  the  articles 
themselves?  If  the  tenets  of  the  reformers  were  not 
calvinistic,  it  will  be  difficult  to  prove  any  thing  from 
written  testimony;  and  it  is  not  manifesting  much  re- 
spect for  their  memory,  to  charge  them  with  writing 
articles,  and  teaching  doctrines,  which  did  not  accord 
with  their  sentiments. 

It  has  not  been  my  aim,  to  attempt  a  confutation 
of  your  religious  opinions.  In  many  of  these  I  agree 
with  you.  It  is  your  manner  of  adapting  the  articles 
of  the  church  to  your  opinions  with  which  I  am  at 
variance.  The  system,  which  you  pursue,  I  am  per- 
suaded is  calculated  to  deceive  the  understanding,  to 
obscure  the  truth,  and  to  divert  the  mind  from  the 
only  proper  channel  of  religious  knowledge.  If  re- 
port is  to  be  credited,  a  very  large  portion  of  the  Ame- 
rican episcopal  church  is  Arminian.  All  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  who  range  themselves  in  this 
class,  pursue  the  same  course  of  interpretation  as 
yourself.  I  have  had  occasion  to  examine  the  con- 
struction, which  several  writers  on  this  side  of  the 
question  have  put  on  the  articles.  The  conviction 
has  been  perpetually  forced  on  my  mind,  that  the 
writer  was  not  so  much  inquiring  into  the  actual 
meaning  and  force  of  the  articles,  as  devising  inge- 
nious ways  of  turning  ambiguous  phrases  to  his  own 
account,  and  in  making  all  general  expressions  have 
a  particular  bearing  on  the  doctrine  he  is  engaged  to 


139 

support.  One  cannot  but  feel,  that  the  writer,  instead 
01  luaKiui^  tk«  articles  his  guide,  takes  his  own  course 
and  compels  them  lo  follow.  Jiveu  in  Hie  learned 
and  popular  work  of  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  this  feel- 
ing too  often  obtrudes  itself,  and  in  a  great  measure 
destroys  the  force  of  his  arguments.  If  Scott's  an- 
swer discovers  less  learning  and  good  sen^e,  it  is, 
nevertheless,  as  far  as"  the  doctrines  of  the  church  are 
concerned,  full  and  satisfactory. 

Whoever  examines  this  controversy,  particularly 
as  it  has  been  carried  on  by  the  Arminian  party,  must 
perceive  how  forcihly  it  illustrates  what  has  already 
been  said  in  regard  to  the  inexpediency  of  all  fixed 
formularies  of  faith.    Why  should  articles,  expressed 
in  language  not  found  in  scripture,  be  retained,  when 
their  inevitable  tendency  is  to  cause  dissentions  and 
controversies   in  the  church?    Not  one  Calvinist,  we 
are  told,  was  present  at  the  general  convention  of  the 
American  episcopal  church,  when  the  articles  were 
adopted. *^     Why  did  not  this  convention  reject  the 
articles,  which  are  so  clearly  calvinistic  as  to  require 
volumes  of  explanations  and    paraphrases,  even   to 
show  that  they  are  not  contradictory  to  the  Arminian 
scheme.     This  point  is  the  most  that  is  pretended  to 
be  gained.    To  prove  them  favourable  to  this  scheme, 
would  require  many  more  volumes.     The  American 
church,  at  least,  could  have  no  motives  for  resorting 
to  *'a  well  timed  ambiguity''  in  teaching  the  doctrines 
of  scripture,  however  such  motives  might  have  com- 
ported with  the  "prudence"  of  Cranmer. 

*  How's  Vindication,  p.  978.    Festivals  and  Fasts  p.  142,  Note. 


140 

Hut  instead  of  thinking  it  possible,  that  any  new 
light  could  have  been  attained  in  two  hu"^*'*^^  ^^^^s, 
and  instead  of  arti«g  un  the  broad  principles  of  gos- 
pel liberty,  the  American  episcopal  convention,  in  a 
free  country,  where  no  man,  or  body  of  men,  dares 
encroach  on  the  civil  rights  and  privileges  of  a  single 
individual,  determined  authoritatively,  that  no  per- 
son, who  does  not  believe  in  the  supremacy  of  bi- 
shops, and  who  is  not  ordained  by  a  bishop,  can  be 
an  authorized  religious  teacher,  xind,  as  if  to  pre- 
vent the  possibility  of  inquiry,  the  exercise  of  private 
judgment,  or  a  free  examination  of  the  scriptures 
among  its  members,  it  fixed  a  criterion  of  christian 
faith,  and  a  code  of  spiritual  laws,  to  which  all  per- 
sons must  conform,  who  would  have  any  part  in  this 
true  church.  These  things  were  done,  let  it  be  re- 
membered, in  a  country,  which  had  lately  triumphed 
in  the  cause  of  political  liberty,  and  thrown  off  the 
yoke  of  civil  bondage,  which  it  had  too  much  spirit, 
and  too  much  virtuous  independence  to  bear. 

If  the  members  of  the  convention  had  actually 
settled  it  in  their  minds,  that  there  could  be  no 
true  church  without  some  established  formulary  in 
addition  to  the  Bible,  they  might  have  greatly  im- 
proved upon  the  old  articles,  and  spared  them- 
selves much  trouble,  by  passing  a  resolution  some- 
what like  the  fallowing: — That  whereas,  we  believe 
the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  to  contain  a 
revelation  of  his  will  in  every  thing  essential  to 
salvation;  and  whereas,  we  believe  all  men  to  have 
a  natural  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dic- 
tates of  their  own  conscience, — we  asjree  to  make 
this  book  the  only  rule  of  our  faith  and  practice,  and 


141 

to  allow  every  one  individually  the  privilege  of  study- 
ing, and  receiving  it  in  tliat  sense,  vviiich  lie  sincerely 
thinks  it  conveys.  Had  the  convention  substituted 
such  a  resolution  in  the  place  of  the  articles,  it  would 
be  no  longer  necessary  for  a  large  number  of  the 
church  to  be  wasting  their  tiuie  in  proving  their  opin- 
ions not  to  be  contrary  to  the  articles;  but  it  might 
be  muth  more  profitably  employed  in  searching  the 
scriptures  to  know  what  opinions  they  ought  to  re- 
ceive. 

If  there  happened  to  be  any  in  the  convention,  who 
had  been  so  long  attached  to  old  customs,  as  to  think 
forms  of  faith  an  essential  part  of  religion,  something 
like  the  following,  for  the  sake  of  accommodation, 
might  have  been  adopted.  *'I  believe  there  is  but  one 
God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things."  "1  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  son  of  God,"  I  believe  <'that 
Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures." 
I  believe,  that  "if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart,  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be 
saved.  For  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  right- 
eousness, and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
salvation."*  If  it  were  thought  important,  there  could 
be  no  very  serious  objection  to  adding  something 
more  to  this  creed,  taking  care  always  to  use  the 
precise  language  of  scripture.  But  if  it  be  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  have  a  formulary  of  faith,  which 
is  not  expressed  in  scripture  language,  perhaps 
none  can  be  more  comprehensive  and  unexceptionable 
than  this, — /  believe  i^i  all  the  scriptures  teach, 

-  1  Cor.  viij.  6.— Acts  viii.  37.-1  Cor.  xv.  3.— Rom.  x.  9- 
19 


a.isfi'siia  1, 


Reverend  and  dear  sir, 

The  doctrine  contained  in  the  two  first  articles 
of  the  church,  or  what  is  commonly  called  the  duC' 
trine  of  the  trinity,  you  pass  over  very  slightly;  and 
yet  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  any  doctrine  of  the 
cburch  stands  in  more  need  of  explanation  to  make  it 
intelli2;ible  or  edifying;  to  its  memliers.  So  far  as  it 
relates  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  yon  arknowleds;e  it 
to  be  of  ^^vital  importance,"  and  at  the  same  time,  de- 
clining to  consider  "the  number  or  force  of  the  objec- 
tions against  it,"  you  content  yonr«eJf  with  selecting 
in  its  support  a  few  passages  of  scripture,  as  they  are 
ctmtained  in  Jones'  work  on  the  Trinity.  Should  your 
readers  not  be  satisfied  with  these,  you  refer  them  for 
further  information  to  the  same  source. 

The  remainder  of  what  I  have  to  say  shall  be  de- 
voted to  this  subject.  I  propose  first  to  inquire  into 
the  scriptural  grounds  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
as  it  is  stated  in  the  articles  of  the  church,  and  in 
other  paits  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer;  and  after- 
wards to  examine  the  import  of  the  texts  you  have 


143 

quoted,  as  well  as  some  others,  which  are  usually  ad- 
duceil  in  proof  of  this  doctrine. 

Before  I  take  into  consideration  the  articles  above 
mentioned,  I  have  some  remarks  to  make  on  those 
parts  of  the  Litany,  which  are  intimately  connected 
with  this  subject.  The  Litany  commences  with  the 
following  petitions,  which  make  a  part  of  every  morn- 
ing service,  and  are  rendered  with  an  audible  voice, 
both  by  the  minister  and  people. 

^'0  God,  the  father  of  Heaven;  have  mercy  upon  us 
miserable  sinners." 

^'0  God,  the  Son,  Redeemer  of  the  world:  have 
mercy  upon  us  miserable  sinners." 

'•Oh  God,  the  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son;  have  mercy  upon  us  miserable 
sinners." 

<'0h  holy  glorious  and  blessed  Trinity,  three  per- 
sons and  one  God;  have  mercy  upon  us  miserable 
sinners." 

In  these  petitions  prayer  is  made  separately  and 
distinctly  to  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  God  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  to  the  holy  Trinity.  Here  are  four 
distinct  objects  of  worship,  addressed  as  diiferent  be- 
ings, and  designated  by  different  characters.  How 
contrary  is  this  to  the  commands  and  example  of  our 
Saviour  His  command  was,  *'thou  shalt  worship 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve." 
He  prated  to  the  Father,  and  taught  his  disciples 
to  pray  to  the  Father.  "At  that  time  Jesus  answer- 
ed and  said,  1  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven 
aiid  earth."  To  his  disciples  he  said,  ''After  this 
manner  pray  ye;  "Our  Father,  wiiich  art  in  heaven.'" 
<'lu  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me  nothing — whatsoevei^ 


144 

ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it 
you."  ''The  hour  coraeth  and  now  is,  when  the  true 
tcorshipperSf  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and 
in  truth."*  We  thus  perceive,  that  our  blessed  Lord 
considered  the  Father  the  only  object  of  worship. 
Me  never  hear  of  his  worshipping  himself,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  a  Trinity.  He  never  informed  his  disci- 
ples of  any  such  objects  of  worship. 

But  what  is  still  more  surprising  in  the  worship  of 
the  church,  is,  that  it  is  not  only  addressed  to /our 
distinct  objects,  but  these  objects  are  respectively  cal- 
led Gods.  A  petition  is  first  addressed  separately  and 
distinctly  to  6ro£?  the  Father;  next,  to  GofZtheSon;  then, 
to  God  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  last  of  all,  to  the  Trini- 
ty. Let  it  be  observed,  that  these  are  not  taken  col- 
lectively, but  separately  and  exclusively.  The  Trini- 
ty differs  only  from  the  three  first  in  being  called  a 
God  consisting  of  three  persons,  whereas  the  others 
are  spoken  of  as  uncompounded  beings.  I  do  not  say 
that  Episcopalians  profess  to  worship  four  Gods,  or 
that  in  reailing  the  Litany,  they  have  in  their  minds 
four  distinct  objects  of  worship;  but  if  they  do  not,  it 
is  quite  certain  their  sentiments  do  not  accord  with 
the  language  they  use.  At  the  best,  this  kind  of  lan- 
guage must  destroy  all  just  conceptions  of  the  one 
true  God,  introduce  confusion  into  the  mind,  and  call 
it  off  from  that  pure  and  spiritual  worship,  which  the 
scriptures  enjoin. 

When  the  minister  solemnly  makes  the  following 
petition,  ^'Oh  God,  the  Holy  Ghost,  have  mercy  upon 
us  miserable  sinners,"  and  the  people  respond  to  it, 

■  Matth,  iv.  lO.-^xi,  35.— vi,  9.-— Jcthn  xvi.  33,-- John.  iv.  3r,, 


145 

what  ideas  can  they  have  of  this  being,  whom  they 
address  as  God,  but  that  he  is  a  being,  who  posses- 
ses power  of  himself,  independently  of  any  other  be- 
ing, to  grant  their  petition.     The  prayer  would  be  un- 
meaning, if  it  were  not  accompanied  with  such  ideas. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  each  of  the  petitions,  which 
are  presented  to  the  other  three  beings.     Hence  they, 
who  worship  according  to  the  Litany,  actually  wor- 
ship/oMr  beingSf  each  of  whom  is  there  called  God,^ 
But  this  is  not  all.     Petition  is  also  made  to  anoth- 
er being,  who,  although  he  is  not,  as  each  of  the  four 
above  mentioned,  distinguished  by  the  title  of  Grod,  is 
nevertheless  addressed  as  a  distinct  being.     The  pe- 
tition runs  as  follows,  ^^By  the  mystery  of  thy  holy 
incarnation;  by  thy  holy  nativity  and  circumcision;  by 
thy  baptism,  fasting,  and  temptation;  by  thine  agony, 
and  bloody  sweat;   by  thy  cross  and  passion;  by  thy 
precious  death  and  burial,  by  thy  glorious  resurrec- 
tion and  ascension;  good  Lord  deliver  us."    Now,  to 
whatever  being  this  prayer  may  be  addressed,  it  can- 
not be  to  either  of  those  mentioned  above,  for  they  are 
called  Gods.     But  God  is  essentially  a  spirit,  and  no 
such  properties  can  be  applied  to  him,  as  incarnation 
nativity,  circumcision,  baptism,  fasting,  sweat,  death 
and  burial.  The  being  here  addressed,  therefore,  must 
be   distinct  from   either  of  the  others,  and  cannot  be 
God.  1  suppose  you  will  say  it  is  Christ  in  his  human 

*  Mr.  Jones  of  Nayland,  to  whose  work  you  refer  your  readers 
for  instruction  on  the  trinity,  says,  "That  in  the  three  former  peti- 
tions tlie  unity  in  trinity;  in  the  fourth  the  trinity  in  unity  is  wor- 
shipped."—Cath.  Doc.  of  the  Trin.  New-York,  1813,  p.  178. 
Whether  this  be  a  clear  and  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  sub- 
ject, I  will  leave  for  others  to  decide. 


146 

nature.  But  what  is  lie  in  his  human  nature  more  or 
less  than  a  man.  It  follows,  that  if  you  pray  to  him  in 
his  human  nature,  you  pray  to  him  as  man.  The  con- 
clusion of  the  whole  is,  that  in  the  Litany  worship  is  of- 
fered in  five  beings,  four  of  whom  are  called  Gods; 
and  the  fifth  is  addressed  under  such  properties  as 
belong  only  to  a  man. 

Such  is  the  result  to  which  it  appears  to  me  every 
one  will  come,  who  examines  the  Litany  without  par- 
tiality, and  who  suffers  himself  to  be  governed,  in 
judging  of  its  meaning,  by  the  principles  which 
usually  guide  him  in  ascertaining  the  sense  of  lan- 
guage. If  the  words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  ordinary 
acceptation,  they  certainly  cannot  be  received  under 
any  other  construction.  If  you  have  secret  ideas,  and 
hidden  correspondences  attached  to  them,  it  will  he 
easy  enough  to  make  them  mean  any  thing.  But  that 
interpretation  is  of  a  very  suspicious  character,  to  say 
the  least,  which  requires  such  aids  to  make  it  con- 
sistent or  intelligihle;  and  if  we  are  any  where  to  look 
for  perspicuity,  and  a  plain,  natural  use  of  words, 
one  would  suppose  it  ought  to  be  in  a  settled  form 
of  prayer,  which  makes  a  part  of  the  divine  service 
of  every  sabhath.  If  it  be  said,  that  my  conclusions 
are  not  just,  hecause  no  episcopalian  imagines  himself 
to  worship  four  Go(K;  I  would  reply,  that  I  have  not 
drawn  these  conclusions  from  any  one's  opinions,  but 
from  the  language  of  the  Litany  itse'f.  It  is  but 
reasonable  to  suppose,  however,  that  they,  who  wor- 
ship in  the  langu.>2;e  «.f  tliis  Litany,  have  correspond- 
ing opinions.  To  intimate  the  contrary  would  he  an 
im))lied  cliarge  of  insincerity,  which  I  should  be  vory 
unwilling  to  make  against  any  exeinplary  christian. 


147 

I  will  next  proceed  to  a  general  consideration  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  I'rinity,  as  it  is  unfolded  in  the 
first,  second,  and  fifth  articles  of  the  church. 

Arficle  i.  "There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God, 
everlasting,  without  body,  parts,  or  passions;  of  infi- 
nite power,  wisdom,  and  goodness;  the  maker  and 
preserver  of  all  things  both  visible  and  invisible. 
And  in  unity  of  this  godhead,  there  be  three  persons, 
of  one  substance f  power,  and  eternity;  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Ari.  II.  "The  Son,  which  is  the  Word  of  the  Fa- 
ther, begotten  from  everlasting  of  the  Father,  the  very 
and  eternal  Gud,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father, 
took  man's  nature  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  virgin, 
of  her  substance;  so  that  two  whole  and  perfect  na- 
tures, that  is  to  say,  the  godhead  and  the  manhood, 
were  joined  together  in  one  person,  never  to  be  di- 
vided, whereoj  is  one  Christ,  very  God,  and  very 
man;  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  bu- 
ried, to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us,  and  be  a  sacrifice, 
not  only  for  original  guilt,  but  also  for  actual  sins  of 
men. 

Art.  v.  "The  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  is  of  one  substance,  majesty,  and 
glory,  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  very  and  eternal 
God.'' 

To  these  articles  it  may  be  proper  to  add  what  is 
said  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Nicene  creed,  as  this 
is  a  received  form  in  the  church  service. 

*^I  believe  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  be- 
gotten son  of  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before  all 
worlds;  God  of  God,  light  of  light,  very  God  of  very 


148 

God,  begotten,  not  made,  being  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father,  by  wliom  all  things  were  made. 

"1  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and  giver 
of  life,  who  proceede^h  from  the  Father  and  Son; 
who,  with  the  Father  and  Son  together,  is  worshipped 
and  glorified." 

The  first  thing  which  strikes  one  on  reading  these 
passages  is  the  strangeness  of  their  phraseology.  In 
articles  purporting  to  set  forth  some  of  the  highest 
and  most  essential  doctrines  of  christian  faith,  most 
persons  would  expect  to  recognize  something,  which 
they  had  seen  in  the  scriptures.  It  is  a  remarkable 
feature  in  all  the  explanations,  which  the  church  has 
given  of  this  doctrine,  that  in  scarcely  a  single  instance 
can  you  find  three  words  together  used  in  the  same  con- 
nexion as  in  the  Bible.  Take  the  following  example. 
"And  in  unity  of  this  godhead,  there  be  three  persons 
of  one  substance,  power  and  eternity."  This  pas- 
sage is  not  in  the  scriptures?  Separate  it  into  parts, 
and  you  will  be  equally  unsuccessful  in  finding  them 
in  the  word  of  God.  Nothing  is  said  there  of  the 
unity  of  the  godhead,  or  of  any  substance,  which  is 
composed  of  three  persons.  Nor  can  you  any  where 
find  it  expressed  in  the  Bible,  that  Christ  ''is  the  very 
and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father;" 
or  that  "he  took  upon  him  man's  nature;"  or  that  in 
him  "were  two  whole  and  perfect  natures  joined  tO' 
gether  in  one  person."  And  al)ove  all,  you  cannot 
find  in  the  holy  scriptures  any  language,  which  bears 
the  remotest  resemblance  to  the  unintelligible  phra- 
seology, "very  God  and  very  man,"  "God  of  God, 
light  of  light,  very  God  of  very  God."  There  are  no 
such  phrases  in  the  Bible,  as  "God  the  Son,"  and 


149 

•»God  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  instead  of  any  such  lan- 
guage as,  *'holy,  blessed,  and  glorious  Trinity,  three- 
persons  and  one  Grod,"  the  word  trinity  is  not  found 
in  the  scriptures.  It  is  a  name  for  whicli  the  apos- 
tles had  no  occasion.*  In  short,  so  far  as  language 
is  concerned,  it  would  hardly  he  possible  to  conceive 
of  a  wider  departure  from  the  records  of  revealed 
truth,  than  is  found  in  the  phraseology,  which  tlie 
church  has  thought  proper  to  employ  in  defining  this 
doctrine  of  tlie  trinity. 

Before  we  proceed  any  further,  it  may  he  well  to 
take  a  short  view  of  the  dittereut  modes  in  which 
JEnglish  writers,  and  principally  those  of  tiie  church, 
have  explained  this  doctrine.  First,  the  Athanasians, 
among  whom  were  Dr.  Watcrland,  Dr.  Taylor,  and 
probably  archbishop  Seeker,  from  the  encomium  he 
passes  on  the  Athanasian  creed,  maintain,  that  the 
trinity  consists  of  three  distinct,  independent,  and 
equal  persons,  constituting  one  and  the  same  God;  or 
in  other  words,  tliat  "the  Father  is  Abuighty,  the 
Son  is  Almighty,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Almighty,  and  yet 
there  are  not  three  Almighties,  but  one  Almighty. "| 

*  The  word  trinity  was  not  used  till  near  the  close  oftiie  second 
century,  when  it  first  occurs  in  the  works  of  Theophilus,  bishop  of 
Antioch.  The  terms  persun  and  subaiance  were  not  introduced 
till  the  third  century,  when  they  were  first  used  in  the  Sabeliiati 
and  Noetian  controversies. 

t  In  his  thirteenth  Lecture  on  the  church  Catechism,  archbishop 
Seeker  speaks  as  follows.  "Since,  then,  there  is  not  a  plurality 
of  Gods;  and  jet  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  each  of  them  God,  no 
less  than  the  Father;  it  plainly  follows,  that  they  are,  in  a  man- 
ner by  us  inconceivable,  so  united  to  him,  that  these  three  are  one; 
but  still,  in  a  manner  equally  inconceivable;  sodistliiiruislKHl  fVoiu 
SO 


150 

Secondly,  according  to  Mr.  How's  thcoiy,  there  ai^j 
three  distinct,  intelligent  hypostases,  each  having  a 
distinct,  intelligent  nature,  united  in  some  inexplica- 
ble manner  so  as  to  make  one  God,  in  somewhat  the 
same  way  as  the  corporeal,  sensitive,  and  intellectual 
faculties  are  united  to  form  one  man.  Thirdly,  Dr. 
Wallis  was  au  advocate  for  the  Sabellian  hypothesis, 
and  held,  that  the  three  persons  in  the  trinity  were 
only  three  modes  or  relations^  which  the  Deity  hears 
to  his  creatures.  This,  also,  was  probably  the  opin- 
ion of  archbishop  TiHotson.  Fourthly,  bishop  Pear- 
son supposes  the  Father  to  be  an  underived  and  es 
sential  essence,  and  the  Sou  to  have  received  every 
thing  by  communication  from  God  the  Father.  "There 
can  be  but  one  person,"  says  he,  "originally  of  him- 
self subsisting  in  that  infinite  Being,  because  a  plu- 
rality of  more  persons  so  subsisting  would  necessarily 
infer  a  multiplicity  of  Gods."  The  Son  possessed  the 
whole  divine  nature  by  communication,  not  by  jpar- 
ticijiation,  and  in  such  a  ivay,  that  he  was  as  really 
God  as  the  Father.  Bisho])  Bull  and  Dr.  Owen 
adopted  a  similar  tiicory.-     Fifthly,  iu  the  system  of 

him,  that  no  one  of  them  is  the  other."  Works,  vo!.  vi.  p.  126. 
This  is  inclced  inconceivable,  th.il  these  three  beings  should  be 
■*each  of  them  God,"  and  at  the  same  time  so  united  as  to  be  "(xiie," 
uud  yet  "no  one  of  them  to  be  the  other." 

*  Bishop  Pearson'^  Exposition  of  the  Creed,  Oxford,  1792,  vol. 
1.  p,  175,  2ir.  The  bishop  speaks  in  further  illustration  of  this 
doctrine  somewhat  in  the  language  of  the  Nicene  creed  and  of 
\ugustin.  "Tl>e  Father  is  God,  but  not  of  God;  light,  but  not 
of  light;  Christ  is  God,  but  of  God;  light,  but  of  light.  There 
is  no  difterence  or  inequality  in  the  nature  or  essence,  because 
!hc  same  in  both:  but  tjie  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus -Christ,  hath 


151 

Dr.  Thomas  Burnet,  the  Father  is  a  self- existent 
Being,  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  dependent;  but  so 
united,  that  divine  perfections  and  worship  may  be 
ascribed  to  each.  Sixthly,  Mr.  Baxter  defines  the 
three  divine  persons  to  be  imsdom,  ijower,  and  love; 
and  illustrates  his  meaning  by  the  vital  fuiver^  intel- 
lect, and  ivill  in  the  soul  of  man,  and  by  motion, 
light,  and  heat  in  the  sun.  For  this  explanation  he 
was  indebted  to  the  sharpened  wits  of  the  schoolmen. 
Seventhly,  bishop  Burgess  supposes  the  three  per- 
sons of  the  Deity  to  make  one  God,  but  does  not 
allow,  that  these  persons  are  three  beings.  He  makes 
out  his  position  by  the  following  syllogism.  ^'The 
scriptures  declare  that  there  is  only  one  God.  The 
same  scriptures  declare,  that  there  are  three  omni- 
present persons;  but  there  cannot  be  two  omnipre- 
sent beings;  therefore  the  three  omnipresent  persons 
can  be  only  one  God."  According  to  this  hypothesis 
the  trinity  is  made  up  of  three  nonentities.  Eighthly, 
bishop  Gastrell  says,  "the  three  names  of  God  the 
Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  must  denote  a  three- 
fold difference  or  distinction  belonging  to  God,  but 
such  as  is  consistent  with  the  unity  and  simplicity  of 
the  divine  nature;  for  each  of  these  includes  the  whole 
idea  of  God,  and  something  more.  So  far  as  they 
express  the  nature  of  God,  they  all  adequately  and 

that  essence  of  himself,  from  none;  Christ  hath  the  same  not  of 
himself,  but  from  him."  p.  218.  Augustin  has  it,  "Filiusestde 
Patre,  et  quicquiil  est  filius,  de  illo  est  cujus  est  filiiis;  ideo  Do- 
niinum  Jesum  dicimus  Deum  de  Deo;  Patrem  non  dicimus  Deum 
de  Deo,  sed  tantum  Deum;  et  dicimus  Dominum  Jesum  lumen  de 
luuiine;  Patrem  non  diciinus  lumen  de  htmine.  sed  tantum  !ii 
men." 


15S 

exactly  sl2;nify  tlie  samo.  It  is  tlie  additional  significa- 
tion, which  makes  al!  the  distinction  between  them.'' 
Accordini;  to  bishop  Gastrell,  tlien,  ''the  Father  in- 
cludes the  whole  idea  of  God,  and  something  more; 
the  Hon  includes  the  whole  idea  of  God,  and  some- 
thini;  more;  the  Holy  Ghost  includes  the  whole  idea 
of  God  and  something  more;  while  altogether,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  make  one  en- 
tire God,  and  no  more."*  JSTinthlyy  a  scheme,  w  hich 
certainly  will  vie  with  any  other  for  novelty,  is  that 
lately  advanced  by  Mr.  Heber,  in  his  Bampton  Lec- 
tures. He  has  made  the  marvellous  discovery,  that 
the  second  and  third  ])ersons  in  the  trinity  are  no 
other  than  the  angels  Michael  and  Gabriel  f  It  was 
the  second  person,  who  conversed  with  Moses  from 
Mount  Sinai;  and  the  third  person,  who  constituted 
the  Jewish  Schekinah.  Lastly,  I  will  mention  only 
one  scheme  more,  which  is  that  of  Dr.  Sherlock.  I 
have  reserved  it  till  the  last,  because  it  seems  to  be  in 
more  exact  accordance  with  the  articles  of  the  church, 
than  either  of  the  others,  unless  it  be  the  Athanasian. 
Jle  says,  «'The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Giiost,  are  as 
really  distinct  persons,  as  I'eter,  James,  and  John: 
each  of  which  is  God.  We  must  allow  each  person 
to  be  a  God.  These  three  infinite  minds  are  dis- 
tinguished, just  as  three  created  minds  are,  by  self 
consciousness.     And  by  mutual    coijsciousness  each 

*  Belsham's  Reply  to  Dr.  Moysey,  Lotid.  1819,  p.  32. 

t  Hebei's  Bampton  Lectures,  preached  before  the  University 
of  ()\(ord,  1815,  Leo.  iv.  p.  21 1,  228.  To  clear  up  this  point  the 
lecturer  levies  most  heavily  upon  the  Jewish  Rabbis,  the  Targums, 
the  Mahometan  doctors,  and  the  ancient  Fathers.  Appendix 
to  Lee.  iv.  p.  240--25(). 


153 

person  of  these  has  the  wlwle  ^vistlom,  power,  and 
goodness  of  the  other  two.''* 

Such  have  been  the  various  and  contradictory  opin- 
ions of  men,  who  have  subscribed  to  the  articles  of 
the  church.  May  it  not  be  thouujht  a  little  remark- 
able, that  articles,  which  were  made  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  "avoiding  diversities  of  opinion," 
should  have  been  so  unsuccessful  in  this  particular? 
If  it  were  thought  necessary  to  deviate  so  widely  from 
scripture  language,  in  expressing  what  was  consider- 
ed a  most  essential  doctrine  of  christian  faith,  should 
it  not  have  been  deemed  an  object  of  the  very  first  im- 
portance to  use  terms  so  perspicuous  and  direct,  as  to 
prevent  the  possibility  of  misapprehending  their  mean- 
ing? What  benefit  can  the  church  derive  from  articles, 
which  are  so  vague  and  unintelligible,  as  to  lead  its 
most  distinguished  members  into  endless  controversies, 
and  which  may  be  appealed  to,  with  equal  confidence, 
by  those  who  support  opinions  as  opposite  as  light  to 
darkness? 

But  when  we  examine  the  account  of  the  trinity^ 
which  the  church  has  placed  at  the  head  of  its  arti- 
cles, we  can  hardly  be  surprised,  that  its  most  learn- 
ed doctors  should  not  be  able  to  agree  in  any  particu- 

*This  was  the  ground,  which  Dr.  Sherlock  took  in  i\\^  celebrat- 
ed controversy  between  him  and  Dr.  South.  The  latter  main- 
tained, that  there  was  only  one  infinite  eternal  mind,  and  three 
somethings,  which  were  not  distinct  minds,  but  called  by  different 
names,  as  modes,  faculties,  subsistences.  Lind.  Apol,  p.  63.  For  a 
more  full  account  of  the  above  statements,  see  Doddridge's  Lec- 
tures, p.  vii.  prop.  132.  Adams's  Dictionary  of  Religions,  fourth 
ed.  Bost.  p.  291.  Worcester's  Trinitarian  Review,  No.  1.  Re- 
ply to  Dr.  Moysey,  p.  32,  12"^.     Rees'  Cvcl.  Art.  Trin. 


154 

lav  mode  of  interpretation.  How  can  leaiJiing  or 
genius  reconcile  essential  and  necessary  contradic- 
tions? How  can  they  draw  rational  or  intelligible  con- 
clusions from  premises,  which  are  at  variance  with  the 
immutahle  truths  of  nature?  Had  trinitarians  always 
been  required,  at  the  very  outset  of  their  theories,  to 
lay  down  axioms  from  which  they  never  should  de- 
part, and  to  give  clear  definitions  of  all  the  technical 
terms  they  were  to  employ>  the  whole  scheme  would 
long  ai:;o  have  disappeared  with  the  primalities, 
the  essences,  and  occult  qualities  of  the  schoolmen. 
Had  they  all  agreed  in  attaching  some  clear  and  dis- 
tinct ideas  to  the  terms,  person,  substance,  essence, 
properties,  nature,  mode,  relation,  hypostasis,  and 
many  others,  wliich  have  been  transplanted  from  tlje 
technical  theology  and  absurd  metaphysics  of  the  dark 
ages,  this  controversy  about  the  trinity  would  have 
been  reduced  to  an  exceedingly  narrow  compass. 
"VViien  men  use  words  without  any  settled  meaning, 
or  when  different  defenders  of  the  same  theory  use  the 
same  words  in  contrary  meanings,  it  would  be  mar- 
vellous indeed  if  they  should  come  to  any  terms  of 
agreement,  elicit  much  light  in  their  researches,  or  do 
much  towards  advancing  the  cause  of  truth.  Is  it  not 
some  objectioir  against  a  doctrine,  that  it  cannot  be  ex- 
pressed in  scripture  language,  nor  defined  in  amj  lan- 
guage so  as  to  be  understood;  and  that  its  ablest  de- 
fenders give  contrary  explanations  of  its  most  impor- 
tant  points?* 

•  The  following  example  will  show  how  unintelligibly,  not  to 
say  contradictorily,  a  very  learned,  and  a  very  great  man  could 
talk,  on  thi>  trinity.    "That  there  is  one  divine  nature,  or  essence. 


155 

One  of  ihe  most  remarkable  particulars  in  tlie  doc- 
trine of  tlie  triuity  as  received  by  the  church,  is  the 
glaring  and  inevitable  contradiction  which  it  contains; 
In  the  iirst  place,  it  is  said,  '^There  is  but  one  living 
and  ti-ue  God."  This  is  an  intelligildc  proposition. 
But  immediately  after,  it  is  added,  'Hhere  he  three  per- 
sons" in  tills  God.  This,  in  connexion  with  the  other, 
is  an  unintelligible  proposition,  unless  it  can  l)e  prov- 
ed by  some  new  kind  of  logic,  that  one  is  three.  Lest 
any  doubt  should  remain  ai)out  the  meaning  of  this 
word  person,  it  is  immediately  after  added,  that  tlie 
second  person  is  <'very  God,"  and  the  third,  ^'very 
and  eternal  God."  Here  then  is  a  being  composed  of 
three  persons,  one  of  whom  is  called  '"the  living  and 
true  God,"  the  other  '^very  God,"  and  the  last  ''very 
and  eternal  God,"  and  yet  these  three  beings  make 


common  unto  three  persons  incomprehensibly  united  and  IncffahUj 
dUtinguhhed;  united  in  essential  attributes,  distinguished  bj  par- 
ticular idioms  and  relations;  all  equally  infinite  in  eveiy  divine 
perfection,  each  dift'erent  from  t!ie  other  in  order  and  n^anner  oi 
subsistence,  that  there  is  a  mutual  inexistence  in  ail, and  all  in  one; 
a  communication  without  any  deprivation  or  diminution  in  tlie 
communicant;  an  eternal  generation,  and  an  eternal  procession, 
without  precedence  or  succession,  without  proper  causality  or  de- 
pendence; a  Father  imparting  his  own,  and  the  Son  receiving  his 
Father's  life,  and  a  spirit  issuing  from  both,  without  any  division  or 
multiplication  of  essence, — these  are  notions,  which  may  well  puz- 
zle our  reason  in  conceiving  Ik)vv  tliey  agree,  but  sliould  not  stag- 
ger our  faith  iu  asserting  that  they  are  true."  Barrou's  Sermons, 
vol.  ii.  p.  423. 

When  it  is  possible  for  us  to  believe  proposiiions  to  \\\\'\c\\  we 
can  affix  no  ideas,  and  which  contain  as  many  contraciictions  as 
distinct  parts,  then  perhaps  we  mav  assent  to  "these  notions"  with- 
out "staggering  our  faith,"  but  not  before. 


156 

but  one,  God!  Of  such  a  docrine  as  this,  it  is  no  wou- 
der  that  Dr.  South  should  say,  ^'Were  it  not  to  be 
adored  as  a  mystery,  it  would  be  exploded  as  a  coU' 
tradictionJ^^  By  the  same  course  of  reasoning  it 
might  be  made  out,  that  a  mile  is  a  league,  because  a 
league  consists  of  three  miles;  or  you  might  prove, 
with  certain  of  the  ancient  fathers,  that  three  men  are 
one  man,  having  only  a  '<^numerical  difference,"  and 
agreeing  in  "essential  essence."! 

There  is  also  a  very  strange  contradiction  between 
the  apostles'  creed,  and  the  fifth  article  of  the  church. 
In  the  creed  it  is  said,  the  "Son  was  conceived  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  but  in  the  article  we  are  told,  that  the 
'^Holy  Ghost  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the 
SonP  How  these  propositions  are  to  be  reconciled 
may  well  occupy  the  attention  of  churchmen,  or  of  any 

*  "That  any  one  should  be  both  father  and  son  to  the  same  per- 
son, produce  himself,  be  cause  and  effect  too,  and  so  the  copy  i^ive 
beinjj;  to  its  original,  seems  at  first  sight  so  very  strange  and  unac 
countable,  that  were  it  not  to  be  adored  as  a  mysfenj,  it  would  be 
exploded  as  a  contradiction"  South's  Sermons,  vol.iii.  p.  140. 
Lond.  1718.  And  yet  tliis  "strange  and  unaccountable  mystery," 
is  what  Dr.  South  labours  through  a  whole  sermon  to  explain. 

tin  speaking  of  the  ancient  doctrine  of  Gregory  Nyssen,  Cyril, 
Maximus  the  martyr,  and  others,  Cudworth  observes,  "These  the- 
ologers  supposed  the  three  persons  of  their  trinity  to  have  really 
no  other,  than  a  specific  unity,  or  identity;  and  because  it  seems 
plainly  to  follow  from  hence,  that  therefore  they  must  needs  be 
as  much  three  Gods,  as  three  men  are  three  men;  these  learned 
fathers  endeavoured  with  their  logic  to  prove,  that  three  men  are 
but  abusively  and  improperly  so  called  three,  they  being  really  and 
truly  but  one,  because  there  is  butane  and  the  same  specific  essence 
or  substance  of  human  nature  in  them  all."  Cudworth's  Intellec- 
tual System,  p.  G04,  Lond.  J  078. 


157 

persons,  who  believe  them  both  to  be  true.  The 
Greek  church  has  been  more  circumspect,  for  although 
it  admits  the  Athanasian  and  Nicene  creeds,  it  affirms 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  "is  from  the  Father  only,  and 
not  from  the  Father  and  Son,"  and  it  has  altered  the 
creeds  accordingly.* 

In  pursuing  this  examination,  1  shall  endeavour  to 
keep  as  nearly  as  possible  to  that  kind  of  trinity^ 
which  is  to  be  understood  from  the  plain  language  of 
the  articles,  and  which  is  defined  in  fewer  words  by 
bishop  Sherlock.  According  to  this  theory,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  as  essentially  three  distinct 
beings,  as  three  men  are  distinct  beings;  each  is  as 
essentially  God,  as  the  others;  each  has  the  same  *'sub- 
stance,  power  and  eternity,"  as  the  others;  and,  conse- 
quently, each  has  independently  all  the  attributes  of 
the  others.  The  attributes  of  the  Father  are  infinite: 
therefore,  the  attributes  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  infinite.  All  the  properties  and  perfections,  which 
belong  to  one,  belong  in  an  equal  degree  to  each  of 
the  others.  What  you  can  say  of  one,  you  can  say 
of  either  of  the  others. 

The  kind  of  trinity,  therefore,  wliich  the  church 
adopts,  and  to  which  I  shall  direct  my  remarks,  may 
be  summed  up  in  the  following  words. 

I.  There  is  one  God. 

II.  This  God  consists  of  three  pers<»ns,  or  beings, 
each  of  whom,  separately  considered,  is  as  essentially 
God,  as  all  three  are  when  united. 

III.  Jesus  Christ  is  one  of  these  beings,  and  ^^pei;- 
fect  ^od,"  at  the  same  time  he  is  ^^perfect  man." 

*New  Edinb.  Encv.  vol.  v.  p.  74^2. 
31 


158 

I.  Tlie  first  proposition  is  one  to  uhieh  all  chris- 
tians, at  least  in  words,  assent.  All  sects  profess  to 
make  the  unity  of  God  a  fundamental  doctrine.  The 
tesliraony  ot  nature  and  of  scripture  is  too  strong;  to  he 
resisted.  But  this  doctrine,  which  is  so  simple  and 
ohvious  in  itself,  has  heen  so  much  disfigured  and  oh- 
scJired  as  scarcely  to  he  recoa;nized  amidst  the  rub- 
bish, vvliicli  has  been  collected  around  it  by  the  fancy 
and  prejudices  of  men.  While  the  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth  continued  to  be  adored,  as  the  one  Supreme 
God,  men  had  a  definite  and  glorious  object  of  wor- 
siiip,  in  whom  all  their  pious  affections  centred,  and 
to  whom  alone  they  attributed  honour,  ^lory,  and  do- 
minion. But  now  we  are  made  acquainted  with  a 
threefold  being.  The  Supreme  God  is  one,  yet  he  is 
tiiree.  He  is  now  a  "'triune  God,"  and  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped as  *'God  in  trinity,  and  trinity  in  unity."  Let 
us  see  what  grounds  there  are,  either  in  the  nature 
of  the  Supreme  Being,  or  in  his  revealed  word,  for 
applying  to  him  such  unscriptural  names,  and  attri- 
buting to  him  such  strange  and  inconsistent  proper- 
ties. 

1.  The  unity  of  God  is  a  simple,  indivisible,  and 
perfect  unity.  His  essence,  substance,  or  nature, 
is  essentially  one.  It  cannot  be  divided  in  parts. 
The  essence  or  substance  of  God,  is  Gi)d  himself. 
His  absolute  perfection  consists  in  his  being  one, 
independently  of  all  things  else.  The  moment  you 
conceive  him  to  be  divided  into  parts,  you  destroy 
his  character  as  God,  But  unless  he  be  supposed 
to  be  separated  into  parts,  how  can  he  be  said  to  exist 
in  three  persons?  Or  how  can  the  word  three  be  ap- 
plied to  him  in  any  sense?  What  idea  could  be  form- 


150 

ed   of  sucli  a  being?    Not  that  he  is  one^  but  three. 
His  unity  would  be  destroyed.* 

2.  Again,  the  attributes  of  the  Deity  are  infinite. 
He  has  infinite  power,  knouled^je,  and  wisdom.  If 
there  were  more  than  one  such  being,  neither  of  them 
could  be  the  Supreme  Being.  God  could  not  l)e  the 
only  omniscient  beingji  if  any  other  knew  as  much  as 
he;  nor  could  he  be  the  only  omnipotent  being,  if  any 
other  had  as  much  power.  If  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit  be  each  <^very  Crod,''  they  must  have  the  per- 
fect attributes  of  God,  and  be  in  all  respects  equal. 
This  is  not  impossible.  There  may  be  three  infinitely 
perfect  beings.  But  in  such  case,  no  one  would  be 
above  or  below  the  other;  no  one,  more  than  ano- 
ther, could  be  called  G(hI  on  account  of  any  pre- 
eminence  of  character.  There  would  indeed  be  three 
Gods,  but  not  one  Supreme  God. 

3.  The  great  doctrine  of  tlic  unity  of  God  is^  also, 
one  of  the  most  prominent  in  the  scriptures.  The 
first  truth,  which  Moses  delivered  to  the  Israelites,  on 
giving  them  the  law,  was,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  Lord.''  This  was  repeated  by  our 
Saviour  to  the  scribe,  who  replied,  "there  is  one 
God,  and  there  is  none  other  but  he."  Mark  xii.  29, 
33.    "The  Lord  he  is  God,  and  there  is  none  else  be- 

*Deus  cum  summum  magnum  sit  recte  Veritas  nostra  pronun- 
ciavit,  Deus  si  non  unus  est,  non  est.  Non  quasi  ilubiteinus  esse 
Deum,  dicendo,  si  non  unus,  non  est  Deus;  scd  quia,  quem  confi- 
dimus  esse,  idem  detiniamus  esse,  quod  si  non  est,  Deus  non  est, 
summum  scilicet  magnum.  Porro,  summum  magnum  unicum  sit 
necesse  est,  ergo  et  Deus  unicus  erit,  non  aliter  Deus,  nisi  sum- 
mum magnum,  nee  aliter  summum  magnum,  nisi  parem  non  ha- 
bens,  nee  aUter  parem  non  habens,  nisi  unicus  fuerit.  Tertul- 
adv.  Marcion.  lib.  i.  r.  n,  Vid.  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  vol.  ii.  p.  gi. 


IGO 

sides  liim."  Deut.  iv.  35.  ''I  am  God,  and  there  is 
none  else;  1  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me." 
Isai.  xlvi.  9.  *'Unto  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
J'athcr,  of  whom  are  all  things."  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  select  other  passages.  No  truth  is 
more  constantly  urged,  than  the  unity  and  supremacij 
of  God. 

II.  My  next  inquiry  shall  be,  whether  Christ  were 
this  Supreme  God.  If  so  wonderful  a  fact  as  this  be 
contained  in  the  scriptures,  we  must  expect  to  find  it 
expressed  in  the  most  unequivocal  and  positive  terms. 
To  render  it  possible,  that  a  being  who  was  born,  who 
had  the  feelings,  affections,  and  passions  of  a  man,  who 
felt  the  pains  of  hunger  and  thirst,  who  was  affected 
Avith  joy  and  grief,  was  subject  to  bodily  and  men- 
tal sufferings,  and  at  length  died, — to  render  it  possi- 
ble, that  such  a  being  could  be  the  eternal  God,  re- 
quires a  weight  of  evidence,  in  comparison  with 
which,  the  united  testimony  of  every  human  being 
since  the  world  began  would  be  nothing,  without  a 
full,  express,  and  positive  revelation  from  God  him- 
self. It  is  not  a  doctrine,  which  any  one  should  ven 
ture  to  collect  from  hints  and  allusions,  or  to  build  up 
from  a  few  doubtful  passages  of  scripture.  If  it  be  a 
truth,  it  must  be  written  in  characters  which  cannot  be 
mistaken,  and  shine  forth  as  the  most  conspicuous  ob- 
ject  in  every  part  of  the  word  of  God. 

In  discussing  this  question  we  can  appeal  to  no 
higher  authority,  than  that  of  our  Saviour  himself.  Let 
ns  sec  if  we  can  infer  from  his  own  language,  that  he 
was  the  Supreme  God. 

1.  To  those  who  were  disposed  to  kill  him  for  heal- 
iua;  the  sick  man  on  the  sabbath  dav,  he  said,  "As  the 


161 

Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he^u*ew  to  the  Son 
to  have  life  in  himself;  and  hath  given  him  authority  to 
execute  judgment,  also,  because  he  is  the  Son  of 
man."  John  v.  26,  S7.  Do  you  understand  from 
this,  that  the  same  being,  who  gave  life  and  autbority, 
was  the  being  himself,  who  received  them?  Were  tlie 
giver,  and  receiver  the  same? 

a.  Again,  "My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him,  that 
sent  me,  and  to  finish  his  work."  John  iv.  34.  "I 
seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father, 
wliich  hath  sent  me."  v.  30.  "My  doctrine  is  not 
mine,  but  his  that  sent  rwe."  vii.  16.  "I  have  not 
spoken  of  myself,  but  the  Father  which  sent  me,  he 
gave  me  a  commandment  what  I  should  say,  and 
wliat  I  should  speak."  xii.  49.  "I  proceeded  forth 
and  came  from  God;  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he 
sent  me."  viii.  43.  Here  Christ  explicitly  declares 
in  several  places,  that  he  was  sent  by  the  Father. 
Would  this  language  be  intelligible  if  Christ  were 
God?  He  came  not  to  do  1ii$  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  the  Father.  In  what  terras  can  you  more  clearly 
define  two  distinct  beings,  than  by  attributing  to  them 
two  wills?  When  he  says  "my  doctrine  is  not  mine," 
are  we  to  understand  directly  the  contrary,  that  it  was 
his?  When  he  says  "he  came  from  God,"  does  he- 
mean  that  he  came  from  himself?  If  the  notion  had 
prevailed  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  that  he  was 
God,  and  it  had  been  his  special  purpose  to  confute 
such  an  error,  it  were  difficult  to  conceive  how  he 
could  use  stronger  language  than  what  is  contained 
in  these  passages.  He  says,  again,  "my  Father  is 
greater  than  I,"  John  xiv.  S8,  from  Avhich  it  rcrtainlv 


does  not  follow,  that  he  and  the  Father  arc  the  satrlei, 
W  hen  our  Lord  told  his  disciples,  that^'he  came  forth 
from  tlie  Father,"  and  they  replied,  <^we  believe,  that 
thou  earnest  forth  from  God,"*  did  they  mean,  that 
they  believed  him  to  be  God,  and  that  he  came  forth 
from  himself?  And  what  would  be  the  meaning  of  the 
passage,  '<he  shall  know  my  doctrine,  whether  it  be 
of  God,  or  whether  1  speak  of  myself,"t  if  God 
and  himself  were  the  same  being?| 

3.  As  the  Lord  Jesus  was  not  God,  so  he  did  not 
in  himself  possess  the  attributes  of  God.  He  uni- 
formly ascribed  all  power,  knowledge,  goodness,  and 
wisdom  to  the  Father,  and  repeatedly  affirmed,  that 
he  derived  every  thing  from  the  Father. 

God  is  omnipotent,  and  needs  no  aid  from  any 
other  being.  But  Jesus  declares,  "I  ca.n  of  mine  own 
self  do  notJiin^J^  John  v.  30.  "The  Father,  that 
dwelleth  in  me,  he  doth  the  worksJ^  xiv.  10.  "The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the 
Father  do."  v.  19.  In  the  discourses  from  which 
these  texfs  arc  taken,  it  seems  to  be  his  whole  design 
to  convince  the  people,  that  the  miracles  and  wonder- 
ful works,  which  they  had  seen  him  perform,  were 
not  done  by  any  power  of  his  own,  but  entirely  by 
the  power,  which  he  had  received  from  God.  There 
is  no  reason  why  he  should  wish  the  people  to  be  de- 
ceived on  this  point.  If  he  had  done  these  works  by 
his  own  power,  why  should  he  refer  them  to  another? 
This  would  be  detracting  from  the  weight  of  his  own 
character,  and  would  tend  rather  to  defeat,  than 
strengthen    his    purpose   of   establishing  his    divine 

*  John  xvi.  do.  t  John  vii.  J7< 


i6B 

authority.  If,  as  he  says,  he  coukl  not  do  these 
things  without  aid  from  Grod,  it  is  evident  he  did  not 
possess  the  same  power  as  Grod. 

4.  xVgain,  Grod  is  omniscient.  Every  thing  is 
known  to  him  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  But 
the  Lord  Jesus  expressly  declares,  that  he  has  not 
a  knowledge  of  all  future  events.  "As  my  Father 
hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things.''  John  viii.  28. 
If  he  had  known  all  things  from  the  beginning,  he 
could  not  be  taught.  Whatever  is  learnt  from  a 
teacher  is  something,  which  was  not  before  known. 
After  having  described  many  of  the  signs  and  won- 
ders, which  should  precede  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, or  as  it  is  thought  by  many,  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, he  concludes,  "But  of  that  day,  and  that  hour 
knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels,  which  are  in 
heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only.^^  Mark 
xiiif  32.  Here  is  a  positive  declaration  on  the  part 
of  our  Saviour,  that  he  did  not  know  what  the  Father 
knew.  His  knowledge  was  limited;  finite  and  not 
infinite;  not  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  of  a  subordi- 
nate being. 

0,  At  another  time,  when  one  called  him  "Good 
Master,"  he  replied,  "Why  callest  thou  me  good? 
There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God.''  Matt.  xix. 
17.  Two  things  are  evident  in  this  reply;  first,  that 
he  represented  himself  as  a  distinct  being  from  God; 
and  secondly,  that  he  did  not  possess  the  same  de- 
gree of  goodness.  It  is  not  important  to  inquire  in 
how  high  a  degree  this  attribute  existed  in  him.  It 
is  enough,  that  he  acknowledges  it  to  be  imperfect, 
and  inferior  to  tlie  goodness  of  God,  The  one  is  in- 
finite, the  other  limited. 


164* 

6.  St.  Luke  bears  testimony,  that  "Jesus  increased 
iu  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and 
man."  ii.  52.  How  could  he  increase  in  wisdom,  if 
Le  were  God,  and  had  originally  all  wisdom?  How 
could  he  increase  in  favour  with  God,  if  he  had  from 
the  beginning  all  the  divine  perfections?  The  wisdom 
of  God  is  perfect.  According  to  the  scriptures,  the 
wisdom  of  Christ  was  imperfect.* 

We  have  thus  seen  from  the  scriptures,  and  mostly 
from  our  Saviour's  own  words,  that  he  was  not  the 
one  true  God,  and  that  the  attributes,  which  consti- 
tute the  perfection  of  the  divine  nature,  were  possess- 
ed by  him  in  a  limited  and  inferior  degree. 

He  was  a  derived  being,  because  he  came  forth 
from  the  Father,  and  received  all  knowledge  and 
power  from  him. 

He  was  a  subordinate  being,  because  he  did 
nothing  of  himself,  but  obeyed  the  will  of  the  Fa- 
ther. 

It  is,  nevertheless,  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  tha.t 
he  is  "God  of  God,  very  God  of  very  God." 

Jll.  I  am  aware  that  the  church  has  a  way  of  get- 
ting over  all  these  difficulties,  and  still  maintaining 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  is  God.     They,  who  believe  in 

*  Tlieodore  of  Mopsuetia  maintained,  that  Christ  had  two  souls, 
one  distinct  from  the  Word.  This  he  said  was  necessary  to  ac- 
count for  many  of  his  actions.  Accordina;  to  him,  it  was  not  the 
divine  Word,  which  increased  in  wisdom,  and  suffered;  but  the 
other  soul  of  Christ.     Butler's  Horfe  Biblicse,  p.  210. 

Theodore,  bishop  of  Pharan,  and  Sergius  held,  tliat  although 
Christ  had  two  natures,  he  had  but  one  wilL  This  opinion  was 
called  a  heresy,  and  condemned  in  the  council  at  Rome,  A.  D- 
M  40.  Ibid,  D.  ^.n. 


165 

the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  have  a  never  failins;  expe 
dient,  to  which  they  resort  with  equal  success  in  every 
emergency, — a  sort  of  magical  key,  which  unlocks 
with  equal  ease  all  the  entrances  to  the  difficult  parts 
of  scripture.  It  has  been  decreed  by  councils,  and 
settled  by  convocations  of  bishops,  and  other  divines, 
"that  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  tliat  is  to  say, 
the  g  ulhead  and  manhood,  were  joined  together  in 
one  person,  never  to  be  divided,  whereof  is  one 
Christ,  very  God  and  very  man."  As  this  scheme 
of  two  natures  is  the  chain  which  holds  the  trinity 
together,  I  hope  it  will  not  be  thought  amiss,  if  I  stop 
to  examine  it  with  some  care. 

i.  It  cannot  be  deemed  an  impertinent  question  for 
me  first  to  ask,  what  proof  is  found  in  the  scripture 
of  such  a  doctrine?  This  is  the  only  test  by  which 
we  ought  to  abide.  I  have  never  been  able  to  find  a 
single  passage  in  which  our  Saviour,  or  his  apostles, 
or  any  other  persons  speak  of  these  two  natures.  In 
all  the  discourses  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  and  to 
the  people,  he  never  once  intimated  that  he  was 
two  beings,  and  spoke  sometimes  in  the  character 
of  one,  and  sometimes  in  the  character  of  the  other. 
If  he  actually  possessed  two  natures,  why  should 
he  not  make  it  known?  How  could  the  people  tell 
when  he  spoke  as  God,  and  when  as  man;  and 
what  could  prevent  their  being  perpetually  deceived? 
To  have  made  his  instructions  intelligible,  or  pro- 
ductive of  any  profit  to  his  hearers,  it  would  have 
been  necessary  on  every  occasion  to  tell  them  in  what 
character  he  was  speaking-  But  so  far  from  this,  he 
always   spake  of  himself  as  one  person^  and  never 


166 

once  iiili mated,  that  lie  had  more  than  one  character 
or  nature. 

S.  By  this  scheme  of  two  natures,  trinitarians  ex- 
plain without  difficulty  all  the  words  of  Christ.  They 
take  upon  themselves  to  judge,  when  he  speaks  as 
God,  and  when  he  speaks  as  man  For  instance, 
when  he  says,  "not  ray  will,  but  thine  he  done," 
they  say  he  speaks  as  man.  That  is,  the  part  of 
him  which  is  man,  addresses  the  part  of  him, 
which  is  Grod.  They  do  not  recollect,  that  this  is 
making  two  wills  in  liim,  and  one  opposed  to  the 
other.  What  idea  can  you  form  of  a  lieing,  who  has 
two  opposite  wills?  W  hat  more  clearly  designates  a 
distinct  being,  than  a  distinct  will?  If  Christ  had  not 
such  a  will,  iiow  can  he  in  any  sense,  be  called  one 
being,  or  "one  Christ?"  If  he  had  such  a  will,  how 
can  he  be  called  two? 

3.  Let  those,  who  believe  in  this  double  character 
of  Christ,  answer  the  questions,  "to  which  of  these  be- 
ings St  Paul  alludes  in  the  phrase,  'Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ?'  Are  we  to  understand  here  the  *very  God,' 
or  'very  man?'  Does  it  require  two  distinct  beings 
for  the  'one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all 
things?'  Have  we  two  distitict  beings  for  the  *one 
mediator  between  God  and  men?'  Have  we  two 
distinct  beings  for  the  one  "head  over  all  things  to 
the  church?'  Do  these  two  distinct  beings  consti- 
tute the  one  person,  who  is  seated  at  the  right  hand 
of  God?"*  Every  one  should  be  able  to  give  ra- 
tional answers  to  these  questions,  and  iind  some  di- 
rect testimony  in  the  scripture  for  this  singular  doc- 
trine, before  he  gives  it  his  assent, 

*■  See  Worcester's  Trinitarian  Review,  No.  S.  p.  05. 


iQ7 

4.  As  this  scheme  of  a  double  nature  is  not  sup- 
ported by  any  positive  scriptural  evidence,  and  is  ex- 
tremely repugnant  to  every  dictate  of  tlie  understand- 
ing, it  may  be  well  to  trace  out  some  of  the  conse- 
quences of  admitting  such  an  expedient,  as  a  guide  in 
the  interpretation  of  tl)e  revealed  word  of  Grod.  In 
the  first  place,  it  makes  the  language  of  Christ  in 
many  instances  inconsistent  with  veracity.  It  causes 
him  to  say,  that  he  could  not  do,  what  he  could  do. 
If  he  were  the  supreme  God,  and  had  infinite  power, 
he  could  do  all  things.  To  say  that  he  '^could  do 
nothing  of  himself,"  would  not  be  true,  in  whatever 
nature  he  might  say  it.  For  if  he  were  God,  he 
could  of  himself  do  every  thing;  otherwise  the  human 
nature  might  control  the  divine,  which  I  suppose  no 
one  will  allow.  He  could  never  have  a  deficiency  of 
power  in  any  one  nature,  if  he  were  God  in  any 
other. 

5.  Similar  remarks  may  be  made  in  regard  to  the 
passage  in  which  he  tells  his  disciples,  that  he  did  not 
know  the  time  when  those  dreadful  calamities,  which 
he  had  been  describing,  would  happen.  They  must 
have  been  eager  to  know  at  what  period  these  direful 
predictions  were  to  be  accomplished.  Yet  he  told 
them  he  did  not  know.  But  if  he  were  the  supreme 
God,  he  knew  all  things,  and  must  have  known  <'the 
day  and  the  hour"  perfectly  well.  Nor  could  he 
know  a  thing  as  God,  and  not  know  it  as  man.  He 
could  not  know  a  thing,  and  be  ignorant  of  it  at  the 
same  time.  How  then,  if  he  were  God,  could  it  be 
true  for  him  to  tell  his  disciples,  that  he  did  not  know 
the  time  when  his  predictions  would  come  to  pass? 


168 

6.  These  two  beings,  or  natures,  although  they 
make  one  person,  have  properties  totally  inconsistent 
with  each  other.  This  compound  person  has  all  the 
perfections  of  God,  and  all  the  imperfections  of  man. 
It  is  infinite  and  finite;  possessing  all  power,  and  yet 
dependant;  knowing  all  things,  yet  limited  in  know- 
ledge; immutable,  yet  subject  to  perpetual  change; 
incapable  of  suffering,  and  yet  feeling  the  pains  and 
calamities  incident  to  human  life;  mortal,  and  yet  im- 
mortal. All  this,  to  be  sure,  is  absurd  and  impos- 
sible; but  it  is  a  necessary  inference  from  this  doc- 
trine of  two  natures  in  one  person. 

7.  To  interpret  the  scriptures  by  this  scheme, 
would  also  introduce  the  greatest  confusion  and  un- 
certainty. You  may  assign  any  meaning  you  choose 
to  almost  every  word,  which  Jesus  spoke  concerning 
himself,  or  which  the  apostles  wrote  about  him,  and 
another  may  give,  with  equal  authority,  a  directly  con- 
trary meaning.  One  may  say  he  speaks  as  God,  and 
another  he  speaks  as  man  in  the  same  place.  £ach 
may  quote  the  same  words  to  prove  opposite  posi- 
tions, and  they  will  apply  equally  as  well  to  a  false  as 
a  true  argument.  No  combination  of  words,  which 
Jesus  could  have  used,  would  prove  him  not  to  be 
God.  Suppose  he  had  said  in  plain  terms  in  every  dis- 
course he  uttered,  lam  not  God;  and  suppose  the  same 
had  been  often  repeated  by  his  apostles,  it  would 
prove  nothing.  We  should  be  told,  that  he  spoke  it 
as  man.  Is  it  not  obvious,  that  such  a  system  of  in- 
terpretation as  this  would  make  the  most  important 
parts  of  scripture,  not  only  unintelligible,  but  contra- 
dictory? In  what  respect  does  it  differ  from  the  cabal- 
ism  of  the  Jews;  or  the  esoteric  doctrines  of  mystical 


169 

philosophy?  The  Jews  pretended,  that  they  had  a 
written  and  an  oral  law,  a  visible  and  an  invisible. 
The  words  of  Moses  were  mere  symbols  of  a  recon- 
dite meaning.  The  hidden  sense  was  always  consid- 
ered the  true  one,  although  it  often  happened,  that 
this  was  contrary  to  the  visible  sense.  So  it  is  with 
this  mystical  doctrine  of  two  natures.  The  common 
use  of  words  is  laid  aside.  The  visible  is  made  to 
give  way  to  the  invisible;  the  plain  sense  of  language 
is  sacrificed  to  a  hidden  sense.  Such  a  principle 
must  destroy  all  certainty  in  the  scriptures,  and  in- 
volve the  inquirer  in  endless  perplexities  and  confu- 
sion. Yet  such  is  the  principle,  by  which  the  fabric 
of  the  trinity  is  held  together. 

8.  Moreover,  this  doctrine  of  two  natures,  when 
carried  to  its  full  extent,  will  tend  just  as  strongly  to 
prove  the  Son  inferior,  as  equal  to  the  Father.  You 
can  prove,  that  he  is  not  God,  and  does  not  possess 
the  divine  attributes,  by  the  same  course  of  reasoning, 
which  you  employ  to  prove,  that  he  is  God.  Since 
his  two  natures  are  essentially  united  in  one,  to  make 
the  <<one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  you  may  deny  of  him 
absolutely  what  does  not  belong  to  him  in  both  na- 
tures. When  he  says,  indefinitely,  that  he  does  not 
possess  all  power,  all  knowledge,  all  goodness,  with- 
out intimating  that  he  speaks  of  himself  in  any  other 
character  than  the  "one  person,"  or  "one  Christ;" 
what  else  can  he  mean,  except  that  in  this  character 
he  is  limited  in  these  attributes?  Now  in  this  char- 
acter he  is  essentially  one,  and  "never  to  be  divided;'' 
and  in  this  character,  if  in  any,  he  is  God,  or  as  bi- 
shop Sherlock  expresses  it,  "a  God."     But  God  is 


170 

perfect.  The  '-oue  Christ,'^  in  his  most  absolute 
character,  is  imperfect,  and  therefore  cannot  be  Gad. 
9.  In  every  attempt  to  prove  this  doctrine,  Christ 
must  be  considered  as  always  havinj^  spoken  with  a 
mental  reservation, — saying  one  tiling  and  meaning 
another  You  are  not  to  interpret  his  words  from 
what  he  said,  but  from  what  he  retained  behind^ 
and  did  not  think  proper  to  express.  Suppose  this 
were  to  be  made  a  principle  in  writing  and  conver- 
sation; where  would  be  truth,  knowledge,  or  any 
thing  else,  which  could  promote  the  virtue,  order,  and 
happiness  of  society?  There  could  be  no  language, 
which  might  not  be  perverted.  Suppose  any  one 
were  to  say  the  Apostles'  creed  in  the  manner  of 
speaking,  which  is  attributed  to  our  Saviour.  He 
might  deny  every  article,  which  relates  to  Christ,  and 
still  insist  that  he  recites  it  correctly.  He  might  say, 
"Jesus  Christ  was  not  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  did 
not  suffer  under  Pontius  Pilate;  was  not  crucified, 
dead,  and  buried;  did  not  rise  from  the  dead  on  the 
third  day;  did  not  ascend  up  into  heaven.''  If  he 
were  to  repeat  the  creed  with  these  negatives,  his 
language  would  be  strictly  correct,  although  he  might 
firmly  believe  every  word  of  the  creed,  as  it  stands 
in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  He  has  only  taken 
the  liberty  of  mental  reservation.  If  you  were  to  tell 
him,  that  he  had  denied  some  of  the  positive  declara- 
tions, and  most  important  doctrines  of  scripture,  he 
would  reply,  this  is  a  mistake;  I  had  in  mind  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ,  which  could  neither  be  born, 
suffer,  nor  die.^ 

*For  some  forcible  remarks  on  this  subject  of  two  natarea,  seo 
Fanlyn's  Works,  v.  i.  p.  98—105. 


10.  I  will  not  pursue  these  consequences  any  far- 
ther. Everyone  must  see  to  what  contradictions  and 
confusion  they  lead.  That  a  principle  of  interpre- 
tation, which  will  admit  of  such  consequences,  should 
ever  have  been  resorted  to,  can  only  be  accounted  for 
by  its  being  a  necessary  support  of  the  trinity.  A  doc- 
trine, which  does  so  much  violence  to  the  understand- 
ing, as  this  scheme  of  two  natures,  and  which  is  not 
even  countenanced  by  a  single  direct  allusion  in  the 
scriptures, — such  a  doctrine  could  not  have  been  in- 
vented, except  as  a  necessary  expedient.  When  the 
notion  began  to  prevail,  that  there  were  three  beings, 
each  possessing  equal  perfections,  or  in  other  words, 
each  equally  God,  so  many  passages  started  forth,  in 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament,  to  prove  the  sub- 
ordinate and  dependant  character  of  Christ,  that  this 
scheme  readily  suggested  itself  as  the  only  possible 
one,  which  could  give  the  least  semblance  of  con- 
sistency to  a  doctrine  apparently  so  irrational  and  so 
unscriptural  as  the  trinity.  To  preserve  consistency 
in  this  doctrine,  another  was  devised  no  less  incon- 
sistent, irrational,  and  unscriptural. 

IV.  We  have  thus  seen,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
not  the  one  true  God,  but  a  subordinate  being.  We 
are  next  to  inquire  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  the 
one  true  God.  Acconling  to  the  iifth  article  of  the 
church,  ^"The  Holy  Ghost  proceeding  from  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,  is  of  one  substance,  majesty,  and 
glory  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  very  and  eternal 
God."  In  most  cases,  one  being  proceeding  from 
another  would  denote  a  difference  in  those  two  beings. 
Here  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  not  only  to  be  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  to  be  it- 


17S 

self  the  *^very  God,''  from  whom  it  proceeds.  Such 
a  mystery  as  this,  it  must  be  allowed,  is  not  to  be 
understood.  I  shall  neither  attempt  to  conceive,  nor 
explain  the  doctrine  of  procession,  but  shall  confine 
myself  to  the  inquiry,  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a 
distinct  being,  and  be  at  the  same  time,  seperately 
considered,  the  ^'eternal  God,'^  and  the  "one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." 

1.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  God,  it  must  be  self-ex- 
istent, and  independent.  The  fifth  article,  and  the 
Nicene  creed  say,  it  ^'proceeds  from  the  Father  and 
Son  "  It  cannot,  therefore,  have  had  existence  ori- 
ginally in  itself;  and  if  it  be  a  distinct  being,  it  must, 
according  to  the  article  and  creed,  be  derived  and  de- 
pendant, and  consequently  not  God. 

2.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  that  the  phrase  Holy 
Ghost,  or  Holy  Spirit,  is  often  used  in  the  sacred 
writings  synonymously  with  God.  In  such  cases  it 
is  simply  a  name  of  the  Supreme  Being.  This  use 
of  the  phrase  is  very  rational.  What  is  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  the  spirit  of  God,  and  what  is  the  Spirit 
of  God,  but  God  himself?  It  is  not  a  "substance," 
which  has  proceeded  from  the  Father.  It  is  in 
reality  God.  When  Elihu,  one  of  Job's  friends 
gaid,  "T/ie  Spirit  of  God  made  me,"*  what  could 
he  mean,  but  that  God  made  him?  When  the  Psalm- 
ist exclaims,  "Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spi- 
Wt"t  what  else  is  it  but  to  say,  "whither  shall  I 
go  from  thee?"  When  Peter  reprimanded  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  for  concealing  a  part  of  their  goods,  he 
asked  them,  "How  is  it  that  ye  have  agreed  together 

*  Job  xsxiii.  4.  t  Psalm  cxxxix.  7. 


173 

to  Umft  the  Spirit  of  the  LardP'^  Acts  v.  9.  On 
another  occasion  the  same  apostle  said  to  those,  who 
wished  to  make  the  Mosaic  institutions  binding  on 
the  christian  converts,  "Now,  therefore,  why  tempt 
ye  Godf  Acts  xv.  10.  In  both  these  passages  it  is 
evident  the  object  tempted  was  the  same.  It  is  a 
common  phraseology  with  the  prophets,  <<Thus  saith 
the  Lord."  "Thus  saith  the  God  of  Israel,"  "Jeho^ 
vah  saith."  The  same  phraseology  is  used  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  scriptures  in  relation  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  When  Agabus  predicted  the  disasters,  which 
Would  happen  to  St.  Paul  at  Jerusalem,  he  commenc- 
ed as  follows;  "Thus  saith  the  Holy  Spirit,'-  Acts 
xxi.  S.  In  writing  to  the  Hebrews  the  apostle  uses 
nearly  the  same  expression,  "Wherefore,  as  the 
Holy  Spirit  saith,  to  day,  if  ye  will  hear  my  voice." 
iii.  10.  From  these  examples  it  appears,  that  the 
names  Holy  Spirit,  God,  Lord,  Jehovah,  were  used 
promiscuously  to  denote  the  Supreme  Being.  When 
actions,  or  words,  or  thoughts,  are  attributed  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  is  the  same  thing  as  attributing  them 
to  God.  Any  arguments  drawn  from  these  to  prove, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  being  from  God, 
would  be  equally  strong  to  prove,  that  Jehovah  and 
God  are  two  distinct  beings. 

3.  Another  use  of  the  term,  Holy  Spirit,  and  this 
much  the  most  extensive  one,  is  when  it  denotes  cer- 
tain powers,  gifts,  or  influences  communicated  to  any 
person  in  a  supernatural  degree.  These  ate  derived 
wholly  from  God.  The  Being,  who  could  originally 
form  the  mind,  and  endow  it  with  such  high  and  va- 
ried powers  as  it  naturally  possesses,  can  modify  these 
powers,  add  to  their  strength,  or  influence  their  action. 


474 

When  tlris  has  been  done  in  such  a  way  as  to  produce 
visible  effects,  it  has  been  called  the  operation  of  his 
spirit,  or  of  the  Uoly  Spirit.  These  powers  were 
abundantly  granted  to  the  prophets  of  old,  and  in  them 
they  were  called  the  gift  of  prophecy.  By  these  su- 
pernatural powers,  which  were  given  to  him  without 
measure,  our  Saviour  was  enabled  to  perform  mira- 
cles, to  foretell  future  events,  and  to  do  all  the  won- 
derful works  which  marked  the  acts  of  his  life,  and 
■which  confirmed  the  truth  of  his  doctrines.  Jesus  is 
often  represented  as  being  influenced,  or  guided  by 
this  spirit.  The  spirit  of  God  "descended  upon  him 
at  his  b.iptism."  "Jesus  being  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
returned  from  Jordan."  Luke  iv.  1.  <*And  Jesus  re- 
turned in  the  power  of  the  spirit  into  Gallilee."  v.  14?. 
He  spoke  of  performing  miracles  "by  the  spirit  of 
God."  Matth.  xii.  28.  What  else  are  we  to  under- 
stand by  these  passages,  but  that  God  bestowed  on 
him  extraordinary  powers,  by  which  he  was  enabled 
to  exhibit  proofs  of  his  divine  commission?  This  fact 
is  also  an  argument  against  the  notion  of  two  natures; 
for  if  he  were  himself  God,  w  hy  should  it  be  con- 
stantly re|)eated,  that  he  received  aid  from  any  other 
source?  By  the  same  miraculous  powers,  enjoyed  in 
a  less  degree,  the  apostles  were  qualified  for  promul- 
gating the  true  religion,  by  convincing  the  world  that 
Jesus  was  CJhrist,  and  that  his  religion  was  from 
God. 

4.  In  no  instance,  where  the  phrase  Holy  Spirit  ijs 
used  to  signify  these  powers,  can  it  be  made  to  be  a 
title  of  the  Supreme  Being.  It  can  never  be  called 
"very  and  eternal  Gv.d."  I  have  room  for  very  few 
examples,  but  will  endeavour  to  select  some  of  the 


175 

more  prominont.  The  apostle  writes  thus  to  the- 
Corinthians;  "Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of 
God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  yoii?^^ 
1  Cor.  iii.  l6.  "That  good  thing,  which  was  com- 
mitted unto  thee,  keep  by  the  Hulij  Spirit  which 
dwelleth  in  us.^^  S  Tim.  i.  14.  In  neither  of  these 
passages  can  we  suppose  the  Word  spirit  stands  for  a 
person,  or  being.  The  most  it  can  imply,  is  an  affec- 
tion of  the  mind.  St.  Paul  speaks  "of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  God  shed  on  us  abundantly.^'  Tit.  iii. 
6.  Again,  "on  tlie  Gentiles,  also,  was  poured  out  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'^  Acts  x.  45.  Now  these 
are  characteristics  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  it  could 
never  have,  if  it  were  a  person,  or  a  distinct  being. 
How  can  God  pour  out,  or  shed  on  us  this  Spirit  iu 
any  other  way,  than  by  influencing  our  minds  and 
leading  us  to  good  purposes? 

5.  John  the  baptist,  in  speaking  of  the  Lord  Jesus^ 
said,  "God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto 
him."  John  iii.  3Jb.  "Hereby  knovT-  we,  that  we 
dwell  in  him,  and  he  in  us,  because  he  hath  given  us 
of  his  Spirit.'-  1  John  iv.  13.  "Ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Acts  ii.  38.  "Then  laid 
they  their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the 
Holy  Spirit."  viii.  17-  Instances  are  frequent  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  have  been  given  and 
received.  But  what  sense  will  these  passages  make^ 
if  you  use  them  with  reference  to  a  person^  or  being, 
or  to  the  "eternal  God?"  Men  may  receive  divine 
powers,  they  may  have  the  powers,  which  they  alrea- 
dy possess,  enlarged  to  an  indefinite  degree,  they  may 
receive  such  qualities  as  will  strengthen  the  virtuous 
principles,  and  improve  the  disposition  and  temper: 


176 

and  this  is  the  only  way  in  which  they  can  be  said  to 
receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  Barnabas  is  described  as  a 
*^good  man,  and  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  faith." 
Acts  xi.  24.  It  is  often  said  of  different  persons,  that 
they  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  use  of 
the  phrase  surely  denotes  qualities  of  the  mind;  and 
not  a  ^'person  of  the  godhead."  How  can  you  say 
that  any  one  is  filled  with  a  person? 

6.  There  is  a  remarkable  passage  in  Isaiah,  which 
corresponds  with  the  above  significations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  New  Testament.  "And  there  shall 
come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a 
branch  shall  grow  out  of  his  roots;  and  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and  might, 
the  spirit  of  knoivledge,  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord,^^ 
xi.  1,  2.  This  was  spoken  with  a  direct  allusion  to 
the  Messiah,  and  represents  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  in 
him  to  be  wisdom,  power,  and  knowledge;— the  same 
kind  of  spirit,  which  was  miraculously  communicated 
in  different  measures  to  the  apostles,  and  many  of  the 
primitive  christians. 

7.  Another  use  of  the  phrase  Holy  Spirit  is  wheu 
it  is  personified,  or  denotes  j?e?'S(?i?fl/  qualities.  Thera 
are  many  instances  in  the  sacred  writings,  in  which 
the  qualities  of  a  person  are  attributed  to  abstract 
terms.  The  laiv  is  represented  as  speaking,  and  the 
scriptures  sls  foreseeing  au(\  preaching;  sin  is  spoken 
of  as  deceiving  and  killing,  and  of  charity  it  is  said 
that  it  "suffereth  long,  and  is  kind;  it  envieth  not, 
vaunteth  not  itself,  &c.*    In  these  several  passages 

'■  Roin.  Ui.  19. — Gal.  iir.  8.~-Kom.  vii.  11. — 1  Cor.  xiii,  4. 


177 

the  laWf  siuj  scripture,  and  charity  are  personified. 
In  the  same  way  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  supernatu- 
ral influence  which  it  designates,  is  sometimes  per* 
sonified.  The  following  are  examples.  "For  it  is 
not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  spirit  of  your  Father 
which  speaketh  in  you.^'  Matt.  x.  20.  "It  is  not  ye 
that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Spirit."  Mark  xiii.  11. 
"The  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  the  same  hour 
what  ye  ought  to  say."  Luke  xii.  12.  Here  the 
Spirit,  or  the  divine  influence,  is  said  to  speak,  and 
teach,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  law  and  the  scrip- 
ture, in  the  places  above  mentioned,  are  said  to  speak 
and  preach. 

8.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  sometimes  personified  under 
the  name  of  the  comforter.  "I  will  pray  the  Father, 
and  he  shall  give  you  another  comforter,  that  he  may 
abide  with  you  for  ever,  even  the  spirit  of  truth." 
John  xiv.  16.  "But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
be  shall  teach  you  all  things."  v.  25.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served in  the  first  of  these  passages,  that  this  com- 
forter was  to  be  given  by  the  Father;  and  in  the 
other,  that  it  was  to  be  sent  by  him.  It  is  hence  evi- 
dent, that  if  it  were  actually  a  person,  it  could  not  be 
the  same  God,  being,  or  person,  by  whom  it  was 
given,  or  sent.  It  must  be  a  derived,  and  inferior 
person,  and  therefore  not  the  "eternal  God,"  mention- 
ed in  the  fifth  article  of  the  church.  The  Lord  Jesus, 
in  speaking  to  his  disciples  of  his  separation  from 
Uiem,  says,  "It  is  expedient  for  you,  that  I  go  away, 
for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  comforter  will  aot  come  unto 
you;  but  if  I  depart,  Z  will  seni  him  unto  you. — How- 
beit  when  he,  the  spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide 


178 

you  into  all  truth;  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself; 
but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak." 
Johu.  xvi  7,  13.  From  these  texts  it  appears,  that 
this  comforter  was  inferior  to  Christ,  for  it  was  to  be 
sent  by  him;  and  that  it  was  not  to  speak  of  itself 
but  only  as  it  was  instructed.  Now  this  could  not 
be  true  of  God,  nor  of  a  person,  which  was  equal  with 
God.  All  those  passages,  in  which  personal  quali- 
ties are  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  will  be  per- 
fectly unintelligible,  if  you  consider  the  Spirit  to  be 
the  "eternal  God,"  or  to  have  a  substance,  person,  or 
being,  the  same  as  God.  But  if  you  explain  them*  as 
you  do  other  passages,  which  contain  personifications 
of  different  attributes  or  qualities,  the  sense  will  be 
clear,  and  consistent  with  all  the  various  uses  of  the. 
phrase  Holy  Spirit  in  other  parts  of  the  scriptures. 

9.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  Proverbs  is  a  remark- 
able personificaticm  of  wisdom.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  whole  scripture  affords  so  strong  evidence 
of  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  this  chapter- 
gives  of  the  personality  of  wisdom.  ^'I,  Wisdom, 
dwell  with  Prudence — I  love  them  that  love  me — I 
was  set  up  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or 
ever  the  earth  was.  When  there  were  no  depths, 
before  the  mountains  were  settled,  before  the  hills, 
was  I  brought  forth."  viii.  13,17,^3,^4,^5.  The 
whole  chapter  is  spoken  in  the  person  of  Wisdom, 
who  is  represented  to  have  been  with  God  from  eter- 
nity, and  to  have  aided  him  in  the  work  of  creation. 
Yet  no  one,  I  suppose,  will  argue  that  wisdom  has  a 
distinct  personality,  and  has  existed  in  this  character 
from  eternity.     Why  then  should  any  one  draw  this 


179 

conclusion,  from  weaker  evidence,  in  regard  to  tlie 
Holy  Spirit? 

10.  Tiie  reasons  why  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be 
considered  as  God,  or  a  distinct  being,  person,  or 
substance,  may  be  expressed  in  few  words,  as  fol- 
lows. It  is  no  where  in  the  scriptures  called  God, 
nor  is  it  ever  made  an  object  of  worship.  Many 
things  are  attributed  to  it,  which  cannot  be  appiied 
to  a  divine  person,  or  to  any  person.  It  was  given 
by  measure,  or  in  degrees;  it  was  shed  forth,  poured 
out,  and  given  in  double  portions;  persons  were  said 
to  drink  into  it;  it  was  quenched,  and  taken  away; 
it  could  not  speak  of  itself,  except  what  it  should 
hear;  it  did  not  know  the  Son  or  the  Father,  for 
Christ  says,  "izo  one  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Fa- 
ther, neither  knoweth  any  one  the  Father,  save  the 
Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  shall  reveal 
him."  Matt.  xi.  27.  But  if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been 
of  "one  sul.'Stance  with  the  Father  and  Son,"  it  would 
of  itself  have  known  them  both. 

11.  It  may  further  he  added,  if  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  be  each  of  them  "very  and  eternal  God,'' 
then  each  must  haye  the  same  properties,  and  be  ca- 
pable of  exercising  them  in  the  same  way.  What 
you  can  affirm  of  one,  you  can  affirm  of  the  other,  as 
also  of  the  Father.  You  might  with  as  much  pro- 
priety say,  "the  Holy  Spirit  shall  send  the  Father  or 
^on,"  as  that  the  Father  or  Son  "shall  send  the 
Holy  Spirit."  As  they  are  equal  "in  power  and 
majesty,"  so  their  authority  one  over  the  other  must 
be  equal. 

12.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  articles,  also,  that  these 
tjiree  persons  are  actually  one  being,  tlioui^h  I  know 


180 

not  how  such  a  thing  can  be  conceived.  Let  it  be 
taken  for  granted,  that  such  is  the  fact,  and  what  will 
be  the  consequence?  It  will  be,  that  all  the  actions, 
which  are  attributed  to  any  one  of  them,  may  be  at- 
tributed to  either  of  the  others.  If  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  be  synonymous  terms  for  the 
same  being,  these  terms  may  in  any  place  be  substituted 
one  for  the  other,  in  the  same  way  as  Lord,  God,  and 
Jehovah  may  be  used  promiscuously  to  signify  the 
Supreme  Being;  and  Jesus,  Saviour,  Redeemer,  to 
signify  the  Son.  By  applying  this  rule  in  a  few  in- 
stances^, we  shall  see  to  what  results  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity,  as  embraced  by  the  church,  will  bring  us. 

Rom.  v.  10.  ^'If  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  SonJ^  Now  if 
God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  be  each  the  same  being  as 
the  Son,  it  will  be  strictly  correct  to  substitute  either 
of  these  names  in  the  above  passage.  It  will  then 
read,  "we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
God:^'  or,  "we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. ^^ 

1  John  iv.  13.  "Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  that  he  loved  us  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins."  By  substituting  the  sy- 
nonymous terms,  this  will  read,  "he  sent  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  he  sent  himself,  or  he  sent  God,  to  be  a 
propitiation  for  our  sins. 

Rom.  viii.  34.  "It  is  Christ  that  died."  "It  is 
Gud  that  died."     "It  is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  died." 

These  examples  are  sufficient.  If  we  may  believe 
the  church,  when  it  says,  that  Christ  was  "one  per 
son,  never  to  be  divided,"  the  same  application  may 
be  made  to  all  the  events  of  his  life.    When  he  says, 


181 

1,  myself^  me,  you  may  substitute  either  of  the  names 
God,  or  Holy  Spirit.  But  if  we  believe  what  the 
church  asserts  in  the  same  place,  that  this  person, 
instead  of  never  being  divided,  is  actually  separated 
into  two  parts,  or  "natures,"  then  we  must  ascertain 
which  nature  it  is  that  speaks,  or  acts,  before  we  can 
make  the  substitution. 

13.  It  is  proper  here  to  observe,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  not  called  God  till  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years  after  the  time  of  the  apostles.  "It  was 
first  decreed  in  the  council  of  Constantinople,  A.  D. 
381,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  Lord, — neither  did  the 
ancients  address  prayers  to  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  they 
assigned  this  as  their  reason;  viz.  That  a  gift  was 
not  to  be  asked  of  a  gift,  but  of  the  giver  of  the 
gift."*  The  following  are  the  w  ovds  of  Erasmus, 
in  his  Annotations  on  the  first  epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians. ^'No  one  of  the  ancients  ventured  plain- 
ly to  assert,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  w^as  of  the  same 
substance  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  not  even 
when  the  question  concerning  the  Son  was  every 
where  discussed  with  so  much  warmth.  But  now  we 
scruple  not  to  declare,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father  and  the  Sou,  very  God,  of 
the  Father  very  God,  and  of  the  Son  very  God."  In 
his  Preface  to  Hilary  he  states  the  same  thing,  and 
in  the  whole  twelve  books,  which  this  latter  author 
wrote  on  the  trinity,  he  never  mentions  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  God.f     He  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the 

*  Racovian  Catechism,  translated  by  Thomas  Recs,  p.  293, 
note  by  B.  Wissowatius. 

t  Hilary  always  speaks  of  the  Hoiy  Spirit  as  t!ic  gift  of  God, 
{donum  Dei.)  In  one  place  he  writes  thus;  "He  command'^  its  tn 
25 


182 

fourth  century.  Ought  we  not  to  be  a  little  surprised 
at  ilndiug  a  doctrine  now  insisted  upon,  as  a  funda- 
mental article  of  religion,  which  was  not  known  in 
any  church  till  nearly  four  hundred  years  after  the 
time  of  our  Saviour? 

V.  Before  I  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  will 
add,  in  as  few  words  as  possible,  two  or  three  gene- 
ral arguments,  which  go  to  prove,  that  the  prevailing 
sentiments  during  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  and  also 
the  opinions  of  the  early  christians,  were  in  accor- 
dance with  what  we  have  seen  to  be  the  plain  sense 
of  Scripture. 

baptise  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  8oh,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  that  is,  in  the  confession  of  the  author,  of  the  only  begot- 
ten, and  of  the  gift,"  &c.  Baptizare  jussit  in  nomine  Patris,  et 
Filii,  et  Spiritus  Sancti;  id  est,  in  confessione  et  auctoris,  et  uni- 
geniti,  et  dnni,  &c.  Ibid.  p.  292. 

According  to  Gregory  Nazianzen,  when  this  subject  first  began 
to  be  agitated,  three  distinct  opinions  were  prevalent.  First, 
tliat  the  Poly  Spirit  was  an  operation;  secondly,  that  it  was  a 
created  substance;  thirdly,  that  it  was  God.  T<w»  h  x.et6'  r,f<.eii 
o-o^o))),  01  f4,Bv  iiipytioiv  rovTo  (to  IIvEf/M.*)  v7re>i.xSev,  ol  oe  y.ric-f^u, 
el  h  Ssov.     Orat.  37.  Vid.  Pearson's  Notes,  p.  387. 

The  Jews  held  to  the  first  of  these  opinions.  They  believed 
tlie  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  energy  or  inlluence  of  God,  and  they 
supposed  it  was  by  this  divjne  energy  that  the  prophets  were  in- 
spired. Maitponides,  in  giving  the  various  significations  of  the 
Hebrew  word  spirit,  says  it  sometimes  means  a  "divine  intellec- 
tual inlluence,"  and  at  others,  "a  puipose,  or  volition;"  and  when 
it  is  applied  to  the  Deity,  it  partakes  of  both  these  significations. 
He  thus  describes  its  fifth  and  sixth  significations.  Quinto  sig- 
nificat  (ni*))  infiuentiam  illam  intellectualem  divinam  a  Deo  pro- 
phetis  instillatam,  cujus  virtute  prophetant.  Sexto  significat  pro- 
positum,  et  voluntatem. — Vox  hsec  ni"l  quando  Deo  attribuitur, 
ubique  sumitur  partim  in  quinta,  partim  in  sexta  significatione, 
quatenus  voluntatem  significat.     Mor.  Nevoch.  c.  40,  Ibid  p.  39 U 


183 

1.  The  Jews  had  no  conceptions  of  any  three- 
fold distinction  in  the  Deity.  They  had  for  many 
centuries  been  under  the  peculiar  guidance  of  God, 
and  received  an  express  revelation  from  him  in  re- 
gard to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  l)ut  they  seem 
never  to  have  had  the  remotest  suspicion,  that  this 
Messiah  was  to  be  God  himself.  All  the  predic- 
tions relating  to  the  Messiah,  both  in  the  writings 
of  Moses  and  the  prophets,  were  such  as  could 
never  lead  them  to  suppose  that  they  refert-ed  to  tlie 
God  of  Israel.  Take  for  example  the  words  of  God, 
which  were  spoken  by  Moses.  "I  will  raise  them 
up  a  prophet  from  among  tlieir  brethren,  like  unto 
thee,  and  will  put  my  words  in  his  mouth,  and  he 
shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  command  him.^' 
Deut.  xviii.  18.  Is  there  any  thing  here  about  tliis 
prophet  being  the  second  person  in  the  trinity;  or 
about  his  being  God,  or  equal  to  God?  On  the  con- 
trary, is  not  the  declaration  express,  that  he  was  to 
be  a  prophet  like  Moses;  that  he  was  to  be  raised 
up,  not  by  his  own  power,  but  by  the  power  of  God, 
and  was  to  speak  what  God  commanded  him? 

The  prophets  allude  to  his  sufferings  and  death  in 
such  a  way  as  to  render  it  impossible,  that  they 
should  at  the  same  time  be  speaking  of  God,  The 
divine  unity  was  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Jews,  and  nothing  probably  has  contri^ 
buted  so  much  to  keep  them  from  embracing  the 
christian  faith,  as  the  idea,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  makes  an  essential  part  of  it.  They  cannot 
be  persuaded  to  believe  in  any  account  of  the  Mes- 
siah, which  involves  a  doctrine  so  inconsistent  with 
their  views  of  the  whole  tenor  ojf  the  Old  Testament. 


184 

Their  aversion  to  this  doctrine  is  so  great,  that,  ac- 
cording to  Buxtorf,  they  make  the  following  article 
of  belief  a  part  of  their  daily  devotions.  *'l  believe 
with  an  entire  faith,  that  God,  the  Creator,  is  one 
person,  and  that  the  unity,  or  oneness,  which  is  in 
him,  is  not  in  any  other.''  It  is  certainly  remarkable, 
if  such  a  doctrine  as  the  trinity  were  contained  in 
the  Old  Testament,  that  the  Jews,  for  whom  the 
whole  book  was  especially  designed,  should  never 
have  found  it  out, 

2.  It  does  not  appear,  that  the  companions  of  Jesus 
while  he  was  upon  eartii,  or  the  persons  who  saw, 
and  conversed  with  him,  believed  him  to  be  God. 
On  one  occasion,  after  he  had  healed  a  sick  man  in 
a  miraculous  manner,  <*The  multitude  marvelled,  and 
glorified  God,  which  had  given  such  power  unto 
MEN."  Matt.  ix.  8.  It  would  seem  from  this  pas- 
sage, that  the  people  considered  Christ  as  a  man,  and 
that  he  performed  his  miracles  by  a  power,  which 
he  derived  from  Godj  as  indeed  he  had  already  told 
them. 

The  way  in  which  Philip  described  Jesus  to  Na- 
thanael  was  as  follows;  "'We  have  found  him  of 
whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets  did 
write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph."  John 
i.  45.  From  this  language  M'ould  it  ever  be  sus- 
pected, that  Philip  thought  him  to  be  God?  When 
Mary  saw  him,  after  the  death  of  her  brother  Laza- 
rus, she  said  to  him,  "if  thou  hadst  been  here  my 
brother  had  not  died."  Would  she  have  spoken 
thus,  if  she  had  believed  him  to  be  the  omnipresent 
God?  The  people  are  said  in  many  places  to  have 
fonsidcred  him  a  prophet.     After  he  had   miracu- 


185 

lously  fed  the  five  tlioiisand,  those  present  exclaimed, 
"This  is  of  a  truth  that  prophet  that  should  come  into 
the  world."  The  woman  of  Samaria  said  to  him, 
after  his  conversation  with  her,  "I  perceive  thou  art 
a  projihet.^'  When  he  asked  his  disciples,  "Whom 
do  men  say,  that  I,  the  son  of  man,  am,"  they  replied, 
"Some  say  that  thou  art  John  the  Baptist;  some, 
Elias;  and  others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets,^^ 
Matt.  xvi.  14.  Here  we  have  the  prevailing  opinions 
of  the  people  respecting  Jesus,  and  there  is  not  the 
remotest  hint,  that  any  one  considered  him  to  be  the 
most  high  God.  So  far  from  it,  that  they  speak  of 
him  in  no  higher  character,  than  that  of  one  of  the  old 
prophets. 

3.  It  is  further  remarkable,  if  our  Saviour  had 
preached  such  a  doctrine  as  that  of  the  trinity,  that 
the  evangelists  should  not  have  stated  it  explicitly, 
and  taken  some  pains  to  explain  and  enforce  it.  No 
doctrine  could  be  more  novel,  none  more  important, 
and  none  more  opposed  to  the  rooted  prejudices  of 
the  Jews.  But  when  we  come  to  examine,  we  find 
nothing  said,  in  the  three  first  gospels,  which  can 
have  any  direct  bearing  on  the  subject,  and  the  intro- 
duction to  the  gospel  of  John  admits  quite  as  good 
an  interpretation  according  to  the  unitarian,  as  any 
trinitarian  hypothesis.  The  strong  evidence,  which 
the  four  gospels  contain,  that  no  one  in  the  time  of 
our  Saviour  thought  him  to  be  God,  and  the  entire 
silence  of  the  evangelists  on  the  subject  of  a  trinity  in 
any  form,  are  objections  to  this  scheme  not  easily  to 
be  answered. 

4.  Another  argument  to  the  same  effect  is  contain- 
ed in  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  after  the  ascension 


186 

of  Christ.  We  have  a  minute  account  of  their  preach- 
ing in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  to  be  suppos- 
ed, that  in  promulgating  the  christian  religion  among 
the  heathen  nations,  the  apostles  preached  all  its  im- 
portant doctrines.  Yet  he  will  read  in  vain,  who 
shall  expect  to  find  any  thing  relating  to  a  trinity  in 
a  single  discourse  of  theirs,  which  has  been  recorded. 
They  preached,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  son 
of  God,  and  that  God  had  raised  him  from  the  dead; 
but  they  never  spoke  of  his  being  the  '^very  and  eter- 
nal God.'^  Ihey  never  intimated,  that  God  exists  in 
a  threefold  nature,  or  in  any  other  nature  than  that  of 
the  one  true  God. 

I  will  give  two  or  three  examples,  which  will  show 
their  manner  of  preaching  in  respect  to  the  character 
of  Christ.  In  Peter's  sermon  immediately  after  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  day  of  pentecost, 
he  thus  addresses  the  audience;  **Ye  men  of  Israel, 
hear  these  words;  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approv- 
ed of  God  among  you  by  miracles,  and  wonders,  and 
signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of  you,  as 
ye  yourselves  also  know."  Acts  ii.  22.  Would  any 
one  infer  from  these  words,  that  the  apostle  meant 
the  people  to  consider  Jesus  the  same  as  God,  or 
equal  to  him?  He  not  only  makes  him  a  distinct 
being,  but  declares  that  he  performed  miracles  by 
the  aid  of  God.  The  whole  discourse  of  Peter  is  of 
the  same  import.  He  concludes  by  saying,  "Let  all 
the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath 
made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both 
Lord  and  Christ.''  v.  36.  According  to  the  trini- 
tarian  scheme,  Jesus,  who  was  made  Lord  and 
Christ,  was  himself  the  same  being  by  whom  he  was 


187 

made  Lord  and  Christ.  If  Christ  were  actually  the 
Supreme  Being,  it  is  very  strange,  that  in  this  dis- 
course, the  whole  object  of  which  was  to  explain  his 
character,  Peter  should  constantly  represent  him  not 
only  as  distinct  from  the  Father^  but  as  subordinate 
to  him.  All  he  says  of  the  Holj  Spirit  in  this  dis- 
course is,  that  it  had  been  shed  forth,  and  those  who 
should  be  baptized  **in  the  name  of  Christ,"  should 
<^receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'^  I  presume 
no  language  could  be  more  unlike  the  articles  of  the 
church,  than  that  which  is  used  in  this  place  by  the 
apostle.  He  does  not  call  the  Holy  Spirit  God,  but 
a  gift;  and  Jesus  he  calls  a  "man  approved  of 
God." 

Another  striking  example  is  found  in  Paul's  dis- 
course to  the  Athenians.  "As  I  passed  by  and  be- 
held your  devotions,  I  found  an  altar  with  this  in- 
scription, to  the  unknoivn  God.  Whom  therefore  ye 
ignorantly  worship,  him  declare  I  unto  you."  Acts 
xvii.  23.  The  first  thing  to  be  observed  here,  is, 
that  the  apostle  was  about  to  teach  the  Athenians  the 
character  of  the  true  God.  If  he  had  supposed  God 
to  exist  in  three  persons,  he  could  not  but  make  so 
remarkable  a  trait  a  very  prominent  part  of  his  ex- 
planation. But  how  does  he  proceed?  "God,  that 
made  the  world,  and  all  things  therein,  seeing  that 
HE  is  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  dwelleth  not  in  tem- 
ples made  with  hands."  v.  2^.  He  goes  on  in  the 
same  kind  of  language  through  the  whole  discourse, 
uniformly  speaking  of  God  as  one  being,  and  never 
intimating  that  he  exists  in  more  than  one  person. 
After  thus  explaining  to  the  Athenians  the  nature  of 
the  true  God,  he  speaks  of  Christ  at  the  conclusion. 


188 

as  follows.  "And  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God 
winked  at;  but  now  commandeth  all  men  every  where 
to  repent;  because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the 
which  HE  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  hy 
that  man,  whom  he  hath  ordained;  whereof  he  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead."  v.  31.  Could  it  enter  the  minds 
of  the  Athenians,  that  the  God,  whom  the  apostle  had 
just  mentioned  as  haviug  made  the  world,  was  ac- 
tually the  "man"  by  whom  he  would  judge  the  world, 
mi\  whom  he  had  raised  from  the  dead?  They  must 
have  believed  this,  if  they  supposed  from  the  apos- 
tle's account,  that  Jesus  was  one  of  three  persons, 
which  constituted  the  Deity.  We  may  observe  in  ad-, 
dition,  that  in  giving  this  character  of  the  true  God, 
the  apostle  says  nothing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  if 
the  Deity  consists  of  three  distinct  persons,  of  which 
the  Spirit  is  one,  is  it  credible,  that  he  would  have 
passed  over  this  remarkable  fact  in  silence? 

I  need  not  insist  on  this  argument,  drawn  from  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles.  Any  one  has  only  to  read 
the  book  of  Acts,  with  a  particular  view  to  the  topic* 
on  which  they  dwelt,  to  be  convinced,  that  they  ad- 
hered most  strictly  to  the  precept  of  St.  Paul  in  his 
first  epistle  to  Timothy,  '^ There  is  one  God,  and  one 
mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus.^^  They  never  apeak  of  a  God  in  "three  per- 
sons," nor  use  any  language,  which  conveys  ideas 
approaching  to  such  a  character  of  the  Deity;  and  yet 
St.  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  say  to  the  Ephesians, 
"I  have  not  shunned  to  declare  unto  you  all  the  coun- 
sel of  God:^  Acts  XX.  S7.  If  the  apostles  could  de- 
clare the  ivhole  counsel  of  God  without  once  alluding 


189 

to  a  trinity,  why  should  we  think  it  important  at  this 
time  to  ingraft  this  doctrine  into  our  faith,  and  make 
it  a  part  of  the  christian  religion? 

5.  It  is  well  ascertained  from  the  best  testimony, 
which  can  be  derived  from  history,  that  the  great 
mass  of  christians  for  the  two  first  centuries  were 
unitarian.  This  fact  is  generally  admitted  by  all 
parties,  so  far  as  it  regards  the  Nazarenes,  or  Jewish 
christians,  and  a  portion  also  of  the  Grcntile  chris- 
tians. Although  there  is  no  direct  authority  in  the 
written  word  of  God  for  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, 
especially  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  received  by  the 
episcopal  church,  yet  if  this  doctrine  could  not  be  dis- 
tinctly traced  to  some  later  source,  your  argument  of 
tradition  might  perhaps  be  thought  to  apply  here, 
and  we  should  be  required  to  believe  in  the  trinity, 
for  the  same  reason  that  we  are  required  to  believe  in 
the  divine  origin  of  episcopacy,  and  the  traditional 
ceremonies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  and  Catiiolic 
churches,  because  we  cannot  go  back  to  ^^any  one  pe- 
riod in  which  it  could  probably  have  originated." 
But  fortunately  we  have  not  this  difficulty  to  encoun- 
ter in  the  present  instance.  Few  things  in  history 
are  better  settled,  than  the  origin  of  the  trinity.  The 
close  analogy  between  this  doctrine  and  the  philoso- 
phical speculations  of  Plato,  leaves  no  room  for  mis- 
take. Many  of  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  were 
Platonists,  and  they  spared  no  pains  in  tracing  out 
resemblances  between  tlie  new  religion,  which  they 
had  embraced,  and  the  philosopiiy  to  which  they  had 
become  so  strongly  wedded  while  heathens. 

Plato  had  some  obscure  notions  of  three  distinct 
principles  in  nature.  These  principles  were,  lir>»t, 
26 


190 

a  Siipi'eme  Being,  or  chief  Cause;  secondly,  a  divine 
mind;  thirdly,  the  soul  of  the  universe.  Wlien  the 
Platouists  became  christians,  finding  some  general 
analogy  between  this  part  of  their  philosophy,  and 
the  a(  counts  given  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  Fa- 
tlier,  Hon,  and  Holy  vSpirit,  they  gradually  interwove 
with  these  many  of  the  peculiar  properties  of  the 
three  Platonic  principles,  and  by  this  unnatural  com- 
bination, the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  assumed  b^  de- 
grees the  shape  in  which  it  has  appeared  in  later 
times.  It  does  not  come  within  my  purpose  to  enter 
into  the  particulars  of  this  history.  It  has  often 
been  done  by  able  hands;  and  the  result  has  been 
such  as  to  convince  any  one,  who  will  examine  their 
inquiries  with  patience  and  impartiality,  that  the  ori- 
gin of  the  trinity  can  be  traced  to  the  Platonic  phi- 
losophy, with  as  much  precision,  as  any  fact  of  those 
times,  either  political,  civil,  or  ecclesiastical,  can  be 
established  by  the  authority  of  history.* 

The  principal  points  of  controversy  at  first,  had  re- 
gard to  the  nature  of  Christ.  It  has  already  been 
seen,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  elevated  to  the 
rank  of  a  person  in  the  trinity,  till  near  the  close  of 

*  The  account  which  Le  Clerc  gives  of  the  three  Platonic 
principles  is  as  follows. 

Plato  auteni  dixit  primura  esse  re  ov,  uinov  uttuvtuv,  Ens, 
Causam  omnium  rerum;  secundum  vero  A<sy#»,  Rationem  et  RectO' 
rem  prcesentium  et  futurorum;  tertium  dem({ue  4'^X^*  xo'^nta*;, 
Animam,  sive  Spiritum  mundi.  Secundum  quidera  Principium  a 
prime  genitum,  seu  factum;  tertium  vero  a  secundo  adfirmat. 
Ars  Critica,  P.  ii.  §  1.  c.  15. 

He  observes  further,  thatParmenides  was  the  first,  who  started 
the  notion  of  three  principles.  Primus  omnium  tria  principia 
constituit  Parmenides.    Ibid. 


191 

the  fourth  century.  Several  sects  early  sprung  up 
in  the  first  ages,  who  entertained  various  sentiments 
respecting  the  nature  anil  character  of  Christ;  but 
during  the  three  first  centuries,  there  is  no  trace  of 
any  doctrine,  lilte  that  adopted  by  the  episcopal 
church,  in  which  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  considered  to  be  three  distinct  persomt  of  equal 
power  and  dignity. 

The  Apostles^  creed  is  a  remarkable  proof  of  this 
fact.  Although  it  cannot  be  ascertained  when  this 
creed  was  first  made,  yet  it  is  undoubtedly  very  an- 
cient. At  whatever  period  it  was  formed,  it  must  be 
supposed  to  have  been  intended  to  contain  what  were 
then  considered  all  the  important  doctrines  of  the 
christian  religion.  It,  nevertheless,  gives  no  coun- 
tenance to  a  trinity,  and  contains  very  little,  if  any 
thing,  on  this  subject,  to  which  every  unitarian  will 
not  assent.* 

I  have  reserved  this  opportunity  to  make  some  fur- 
ther remarks  on  your  quotations  from  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius.  Enough  has  already  been  said  on  the  sus- 
picious character  of  these  epistles  to  make  it  appear, 
that  they  are  not  entitled  to  the  least  degree  of  credit 

*  Those,  who  wish  to  see  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  traced  by 
historical  deductions  to  its  true  source,  may  find  it  done  in  a  very 
concise  and  perspicuous  manner  in  professor  Norton's  "State- 
ment of  Reasons  for  not  believing  the  Doctrines  of  Trinitarians 
respecting  the  nature  of  God,  and  the  Person  of  Christ,"  written 
In  reply  to  professor  Stuart's  Letters  to  Mr.  Channing.  p.  31. 

A  more  full  account  is  also  contained  in  the  General  Repos. 
and  Rev.  vol.  iii.  p.  13.  Cudworth's  fntellectual  System,  Book 
i.  chap.  4.  Priestley's  Hist,  of  Early  Opinions.  And  some  re-, 
marks  may  be  found  to  the  purpose  in  Le  Clerc's  Ars  Critics, 
Pars  Secunda,  §  15.  *• 


as  authority  iu  points  of  controversy.  Many  epistles^ 
whicli  have  gone  out  under  the  name  of  Ignatius,  are 
universally  acknowledged  to  be  fictitious;  and  those, 
which  are  admitted  by  some  to  be  genuine,  are  as 
universally  allowed  to  be  mangled  and  interpolated. 
And  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  many  of  the  inter- 
polations, which  have  been  detected,  relate  particu- 
larly to  the  trinity. 

I  will  quote  two  or  three  of  those,  which  were  de- 
tected by  archbishop  Usher. 

^'Our  Lord  and  God  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God." 

<'One  only  begotten  Son,  the  Word,  God  and 
Man.'^ 

"God  the  Word  dwelt  in  a  human  body."* 

Now  whatever  Ignatius  may  have  written,  it  is 
certain  he  did  not  write  these  passages;  although,  if 
they  had  not  been  discovered  to  be  spurious,  they 
would  now  be  defended  with  as  much  zeal  as  any 
otlier  parts  of  his  reputed  writings.  Whatever  he 
wrote,  these  passages  were  added  by  some  later 
hand.  From  these  insertions  two  things  are  evident; 
first,  that  when  they  were  made,  these  vvritings  were 
not  thought  suflBciently  strong  in  favour  of  the  trini- 
ty; and  secondly,  that  no  confidence  can  be  placed  iu 
any  other  passages  of  a  similar  character.  If  the 
original  writings  taught  explicitly  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity,  why  should  these  additions  have  been  deem- 
ed necessary?! 

*  Usher's  edition  of  Ignatius'  Epistles,  Oxford,  1644,  p.  42,  96, 
202;  as  quoted  in  Lind.  Sequel,  p.  44G. 

t  Speaking  of  the  seven  epistles,  Less,  who  believes  them  to  be 
genuine,  observes,  "These  are  tolerably  well  purified  from  modern 


193 

Among  the  extracts,  which  you  make  from  Igna- 
tius, are  the  following. 

"Coutinue  inseparable  from  Jesus  Christ  our  God." 
p.  40. 

^'Follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  the  Fa- 
ther."  Ibid. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  a  single  glance  of  the  eye,  how 
striking  a  resemblance  there  is  between  these  quota- 
tions, and  those  above,  which  were  proved  by  arch- 
bishop Usher  to  have  been  inserted  by  design;  and 
there  is  the  strongest  presumptive  evidence,  that  they 
all  have  a  similar  origin.  You  must  allow  me  again  to 
express  my  surprise,  that  you  should  quote  passages 
of  this  character,  which  are  so  very  important  in  their 
consequences,  witliout  at  least  intimating  to  your  rea- 
ders, that  they  are  of  doubtful  authority,  and  should 
be  received  with  very  great  caution. 

interpolations.  I  say  tolerably  well,  for  even  the  smaller  edition 
appears  in  certain  places  to  be  suspicious."  Less  on  the  New 
Testament,  p.  71. 

Notwithstanding  the  suspicious  character  of  these  epistles,  and 
the  very  great  probability  tliat  they  were  written  by  some  design- 
ing person  to  impose  on  the  world,  they  are  thought  to  be  of  so 
much  account  to  the  episcopal  church,  that  they  have  lately  been 
published  in  England  as  a  tract  for  general  circulation,  by  a 
"Society  for  the  Distribution  of  Tracts,"  &c.  and  in  this  form  they 
help  to  make  up  the  book  called  "The  Churchman  Armed."  See 
vol.  i.  p.  145. 

In  this  same  book  is  inserted  the  learned  treatise  of  bishop 
Burgess  to  prove,  that  "St.  Paul  was  the  founder  ot  the  church  in 
Britain."  Vol.  ii.  p.  Sl6.  "The  church  of  Britain  was  established 
before  the  church  of  Rome."  p.  389. 

But  the  church  has  hitherto  been  contending,  that  it  has  de^ 
scended  through  the  church  of  Rome.  How  is  this  point  to  be 
settled?  Or  how  is  it  to  be  explained,  that  the  church  has  been  so 
long  in  an  error? 


494 

I  have  thus  finished  the  general  view,  which  I 
proposed  to  taivc  of  tlie  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  as 
contained  in  the  articles  of  the  church.  I  have  at- 
tempted to  compare  it  with  reason,  with  scripture, 
and  with  itself;  and  on  my  mind  the  conviction  is  ir- 
resistible, that,  as  it  is  there  stated,  it  is  irrational, 
unscriptural,  and  contradictory  in  its  parts.  Not 
only  so,  its  origin  may  be  traced  to  a  period  much 
later,  than  that  of  our  Saviour,  or  his  apostles. 
These  things  considered,  I  cannot  persuade  myself, 
that  such  a  doctrine  is  to  be  received  as  in  any  man- 
ner connected  with  the  pure,  the  consistent,  and  holy 
religion  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


ILSf^SIB  Wc 


Reverend  and  dear  sir. 

It  only  remains  in  this  letter  to  explain  the 
texts  of  scripture,  which  you  have  adduced  in  proof 
of  the  "divinity  of  the  Saviour,''  and  some  others 
usually  brought  forward  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity. 

After  reading  the  extracts  from  scripture,  which 
are  contained  in  the  preceding  letter,  no  one  probably 
will  deny,  that  the  unitarian  doctrine  of  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Father,  and  the  inferiority  of  the  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit  is  in  some  sense  true.  Trinitarians 
argue,  that  these  texts  are  to  be  modified  and  explain- 
ed in  accordance  with  others,  which  they  think  teach 
the  deity  of  the  Saviour  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  aud 
their  equality  with  the  Father.  On  the  contrary, 
unitarians  hold,  that  the  plain  and  obvious  sense  of 
the  whole  scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
New,  forcibly  inculcates  the  unity  and  supremacy  of 
God,  and  the  inferiority  of  Christ;  and  also,  that 
every  text,  which  is  thought  to  be  favourable  to  the 
triuitariaa    hypothesis,  may,    by   fair  and  rational 


196 

principles  of  interpretation,  be  explained  in  confor- 
mity with  this  clear  and  prevailing  sense  of  scripture. 
They  do  not  deny,  that  many  passages  are  consistent 
with  trinitarian  views,  but  they  maintain,  that  these 
are  equally  consistent,  when  properly  understood, 
"with  the  sentiments  of  unitarians;  and  they  com- 
plain, that  these  passages  have  been  forced  into  a 
meaning,  in  support  of  the  trinity,  contrary  to  the 
general  tenor  of  scripture,  the  strongest  dictates  of 
the  understanding,  the  express  and  repeated  declara- 
tions of  our  Saviour,  the  preaching  of  the  apostles, 
the  sentiments  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  and  of  the 
primitive  christians.  They  think  there  ought  to  be 
consistency  in  these  things,  and  that  no  persons 
should  attempt  to  support  doctrines  by  scripture  au- 
thority, which,  from  a  full  examination  of  the  subject, 
it  is  well  ascertained,  were  not  known  till  more  than 
two  hundred  years  after  the  last  book  of  the  Bible 
was  written. 

After  humble,  patient,  and  persevering  inquiries 
into  the  scriptures,  unitarians  find  nothing  taught 
there,  which  is  contrary  to  the  numerous  positive  de- 
clarations of  our  Saviour;  that  he  was  inferior  to  the 
Father,  sent  by  him,  and  derived  all  things  from 
him;  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  universal  senti- 
ments  of  the  Jews  and  primitive  christians  respecting 
the  unity  and  supremacy  of  God;  nothing  in  one  part 
contradictory  to  the  necessary  sense  of  another;  noth- 
ing, which  violates  reason,  or  opposes  the  decisions 
of  the  understanding.  To  them  the  whole  appears, 
as  they  think  every  revelation  from  God  must  appear, 
rational,  consistent,  intelligible.  They  find  many 
texts,  which  they  believe  it  impossible  to  explain  on 


197 

the  trinitarian  hypothesis,  without  violating  every 
just  principle  of  language;  hut  nonef  vvliich  will  not 
admit  a  fair  interpretation  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  absolute  unity.  They  do  not  profess  to  meet  with 
no  difficulties.  In  a  book  like  the  Bible,  wliich  has 
been  transmitted  through  so  many  ages,  it  is  impossi- 
ble, that  these  should  not  abound.  But  they  find 
nonef  which,  according  to  the  unitarian  hypothesis, 
may  not  be  solved  on  rational  principles;  but  mamjy 
which,  according  to  the  trinitarian  scheme,  are  inex- 
plicable. 

It  is  a  charge  often  brought  against  unitarians, 
that  they  think  it  their  duty  to  consult  their  under- 
standiug  in  forming  their  religious  opinions.  They 
think  no  one  can  be  excused  from  exercising  his 
reason,  on  a  subject  of  the  utmost  moment  and  in- 
terest. They  believe  God  did  not  make  a  revela- 
tion, which  was  not  to  be  understood  by  his  crea- 
tures, because  no  purpose  could  be  answered  by  such 
a  revelation.  Reason  is  the  ruling  principle  of  de- 
cision and  action  in  the  common  aftairs  of  life;  it 
gives  laws  to  the  will;  the  other  faculties  of  the  mind 
are  all  subordinate  to  this,  and  designed  only  as  se- 
condaries and  aids;  and  shall  we  forsake  this  guiding 
principle,  when  we  come  to  study  the  scriptures,  and 
search  out  the  treasures  of  divine  truth?  If  we  aban- 
don this  guide,  we  shall  be  left  to  the  mercy  of  preju- 
dice, and  the  unlicensed  control  of  our  imagination, 
and  shall  act,  in  the  momentous  cause  of  religion,  as 
we  could  never  be  induced  to  act  in  the  most  trivial 
concerns  of  life. 

When  unitarians  are  charged  with  putting  the  de- 
cisions of  reason  in  competition  with  the  truths  of  re- 


198 

velatioii,  it  is  a  false  charge.  Wliatever  tliey  find 
revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  they  receive  most  cor- 
dially and  implicitly;  but  they  regard  it  an  impe- 
rious duty  to  use  their  best  faculties  in  ascertaining 
>vhat  is,  and  what  is  not  revealed.  They  place  no 
reliance  on  the  interpretations  of  fallible  men,  any 
farther  than  from  their  own  inquiry  they  find  them 
sanctioned  in  the  scriptures.  By  what  faculty  of  the 
piind  are  we  to  judge,  if  not  by  the  understanding; 
or  by  what  proofs  are  we  to  be  convinced,  if  not  by 
the  results  of  our  own  deliberate  investigations. 

Chillingworth  speaks  with  great  force  and  truth  in 
repelling  the  same  charge,  as  it  was  formerly  made 
by  the  Catholics  against  the  protestant  churches. 
•^Propose  me  any  thing  out  of  the  Bible,  and  require 
whether  I  believe  it  or  no,  and  seem  it  never  so  in- 
comprehensible to  human  reason,  I  will  subscribe  it 
with  hand  and  heart,  as  knowing  no  demonstration 
can  be  stronger  than  this;  God  hath  said  so,  there- 
fore it  is  true.  In  other  things  I  will  tal^e  no  man's 
liberty  of  judgment  from  him;  neither  shall  any  man 
take  mine  from  me.  I  will  think  no  man  the  worse 
man,  nor  the  worse  Christian,  I  will  love  no  man  the 
less  for  differing  in  opinion  from  me.  And  what 
measure  I  mete  to  others,  I  expect  from  them  again. 
I  am  fully  assured,  that  God  does  not,  and  therefore 
that  men  ought  not  to  require  any  more  of  man,  than 
this;  to  believe  the  scripture  to  be  God's  word,  to  en- 
deavour to  find  the  true  sense  of  it,  and  to  live  ac- 
cording to  it."  '^  Every  unitarian,  it  is  believed, 
would  subscribe  lo  these  sentiments  ^'with  hand  and 

*  ChlUingworth'a  Religion  of  Protestants,  a  safe  way  to  Salva'- 
tion,  chap.  vi.     Protp.-fants  not  Horctics,  sec.  56. 


199 

heart.^^  Every  one  believes  what  the  Bible  contains_, 
and  for  the  same  reason  as  Chillingworth,  "because 
God  hath  said  it."  But  since  cluistians  difl'er  so 
widely  respecting  what  is  actually  contained  in  the 
Bible,  how  can  we  give  peace  to  our  conscience,  or 
be  satisfied  that  we  have  the  whole  truth,  unless  we 
use  our  best  faculties  in  conducting  our  inquiries,  and 
forming  our  judgment?  There  has  prol»ably  never 
been  a  unitarian,  who  rejected  any  doctrine  or  opin- 
ion, which  others  have  thought  to  be  in  the  scrip- 
tures, solely  because  this  doctrine  or  opinion  was  not 
consonant  to  reason. 

If  you  tell  me  you  believe  a  doctrine,  which  you 
acknowledge  to  be  unintelligible  and  irrational,  you 
must  suppose  such  an  acknowledgment  will  at  least 
excite  a  suspicion,  that  you  may  be  in  a  mistake.  If 
you  go  on  to  tell  me,  that  this  doctrine  is  contained 
in  scripture,  I  still  shall  not  be  able  to  believe  it,  till 
I  have  examined  seriously  and  patiently  for  myself; 
because  I  cannot  believe  a  proposition,  till  I  am  con- 
vinced by  some  course  of  reasoning,  that  it  is  true.  If 
the  scriptures  are  to  be  believed  at  all,  it  must  be  on 
the  authority  of  reason;  and,  indeed,  by  what  other 
authority  can  you  determine  the  truth  of  any  doctrine 
or  opinion?  And  admitting  you  could  believe  a  thing 
for  which  you  could  give  no  reason,  what  would  be 
the  value  of  such  a  faitii? 

*'When  faith  is  virtue,  reason  makes  it  so." 

The  truth  is,  all  our  religious  opinions,  which  can 
be  called  such,  are  founded  on  reason,  and  to  deny  its 
use  would  be  to  reject  our  religion  altogether.  AV'hy 
do  we  believe  in  the  lit'C;  sufferings,  and  death  of  our 


200 

Saviour,  or  why  do  we  believe,  that  tlie  apoetles  hate 
given  us  a  faithful  account  of  his  instructions,  except 
from  the  conviction,  which  is  produced  by  a  rational 
investis;ation  of  the  subject?  1  have  heard  preachers, 
in  the  cominenceinenf  of  a  discourse,  declaim  vehe- 
mently against  the  use  of  reason  in  deciding  on  the 
articles  of  religious  faith,  and  yet  make  the  chief  bur- 
den of  what  followed  a  series  of  arguments,  to  prove 
some  of  the  principal  tenets  of  their  belief. 

Some  effect  is  produced  on  the  minds  of  the  unin- 
formed by  telling  them,  that  unitarians  ^*exalt  reason 
above  revelation.''  To  any  one,  who  is  in  the  least 
degree  acquainted  with  their  writin2;s,  such  a  charge 
needs  no  refutation.  If  to  search  with  patient  and 
unwearied  labour,  with  a  pious  and  humble  desire  of 
knowing  the  truth,  as  it  was  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ, 
and  preached  l»y  the  apostles;  if  to  value  the  com- 
mands  of  God  more  than  the  commands  of  men, 
and  to  think  it  necessary  to  be  convinced  of  a  fact 
before  it  is  believed;  if  to  acknowledge  the  divine 
will  as  the  only  proper  rule  of  conduct,  to  rest  the 
hope  of  future  safety  wholly  on  the  mercy  of  God, 
and  to  expect  salvation  on  no  other  terms,  than  re- 
pentance, obedience,  and  a  holy  life; — if  these  be 
to  exalt  reason  above  revelation,  few  unitarians  pro- 
bably will  care  to  free  themselves  from  the  imputa- 
tion; if  they  be  not,  the  charge  is  unfounded. 

We  are  told,  that  they  have  a  habit  of  rejecting 
sucli  doctrines,  as  they  do  not  comprehend.  This 
also  is  a  mistake.  They  reject  no  doctrine  lor  this 
reason  only,  because  they  do  not  comprehend  it.  No 
man,  it  is  presumed,  pretends  to  comprehend  tlie  at- 
tributes of  God,  or  any  of  his  works  in  tneirfull  ex- 


201 

tent.  I  cannot  comprehend  his  existence,  nor  my 
own,  nor  the  existence  of  any  thing.  I  cannot  com- 
prehend the  structure  of  my  own  frame,  nor  of  any 
organized  substance  in  nature.  Yet  1  believe  these 
things,  because  they  harmonize  perfectly  with  my 
understanding,  my  conscience,  and  every  principle  of 
my  mind.  I  discover  nothing  in  them  contradictory 
or  impossible.  I  should  believe  in  a  miracle  upon 
the  same  principle;  not  because  I  can  comprehend 
it,  but  because  my  reason  convinces  me  that  God  is  a 
Being  of  infinite  power,  and  may,  if  he  choose,  mani- 
fest his  power  in  the  working  of  a  miracle.  If  I  did 
not  first  use  my  reason,  I  could  never  be  convinced, 
that  it  was  not  a  deception. 

But  it  is  one  thing  for  a  proposition  or  doctrine  to 
be  incomprehensible,  and  quite  a  different  thing  for  it 
to  be  contradictory,  or  inconsistent  with  the  plainest 
principles  of  the  understanding,  or  with  any  known, 
positive  truth.  I  do  not  believe,  that  one  man  will 
be  punished  for  the  sins  which  another  has  committed, 
nor  that  God  has  elected  a  certain  number  to  ever- 
lasting life,  and  left  the  remainder  of  mankind  to 
perish  without  remedy, — not  because  these  doctrines 
are  incomprehensible,  but  because  they  are  inconsis- 
tent with  the  goodness  and  justice  of  God,  which  I 
consider  established  truths.  I  do  not  believe,  that 
the  earth  is  a  plane  surface,  and  stands  still,  and  that 
the  sun  revolves  around  it  every  day, — not  because 
these  things  are  incomprehensible,  but  because  my 
reason  has  convinced  me,  thai  they  are  inconsistent 
with  the  experience  of  wise  men,  and  the  laws  of  na- 
ture. That  a  proposition  is  incomprehensible,  there- 
fore, is  no  ground  for  rejecting  it,  and  he  must  be  very 


S02 

miicli  in  the  tlark,  and  have  no  common  share  of  cic 
dulity,  who  fancies,  that  any  unitarian  has  on  this 
ground  disbelieved  a  single  article  of  faith,  which  has 
been  received  by  other  christians. 

The  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  perhaps,  is  as  incom- 
prehensible as  any  thing;  and  yet  I  do  not  disbelieve 
this  doctrine  because  I  cannot  comprehend  it.  I  dis- 
believe it,  first,  because  I  can  find  no  authority  for  it 
in  scripture;  secondly,  because  it  is  contradictory  in 
itself;  thirdly,  because  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  moral 
attributes  of  God;  and  fourthly,  because  it  violates  all 
the  rules  of  right  reasoning  by  which  in  other  cases, 
I  am  enabled  to  come  at  a  knowledge  of  truth. 

Furthermore,  unitarians  are  charged  with  not  believ- 
ing in  mysteries.  From  this  charge  very  few  among 
them  it  is  presumed  would  desire  to  escape.  Is  not 
the  christian  religion  a  revelation  from  God,  designed 
to  enlighten,  improve,  and  encourage  his  creatures, 
and  is  it  credible,  that  such  a  revelation  should  con- 
tain mysteries,  or  dark  and  unintelligible  doctrines? 
Did  God  commission  his  only  Son  to  publish  his  will 
to  men  by  miracles  and  wonders,  and  at  the  same 
time  make  his  communications  in  such  tenns  as  they 
could  not  possibly  understand,  or  even  conceive?  The 
very  idea  implies  an  impeachment  against  the  good- 
ness of  God,  at  which  the  mind  revolts.  The  design 
of  a  revelation  was  to  draw  aside  the  veil  of  obscurity, 
and  bring  down  a  knowledge  of  the  divine  nature,  the 
principles  of  duty,  and  the  prospects  of  futurity  to  the 
capacities  of  men.  But  how  is  this  design  affected,  if 
we  are  still  involved  in  mystery?  And  what  concep- 
tion, let  me  ask,  can  you  form  of  a  revealed  mystery? 
What  is  a  revelation,  but  something  made  knoivn. 


203 

whicli  was  before  unknown.  Whatever  eonlinues  to 
be  unknown,  and  cannot  possibly  be  understood,  has 
certainly  never  been  revealed.  If  we  hold,  that  our  re- 
ligion is  mysterious  and  unintelligible,  we  make  a 
very  wrong  use  of  language,  Avhen  we  call  it  a  reve- 
lation; and  if  we  believe  it  to  be  a  revelation,  we 
speak  very  inconsistently,  when  we  say  it  is  not  to  be 
understood. 

If  we  look  into  the  sacred  writings  we  shall  not  find, 
that  our  Saviour,  or  his  apostles,  ever  spoke  of  any 
mysteries  in  their  instructions,  which  their  followers 
were  not  to  understand.  The  word  mystery  is  often 
used  in  the  Bible,  but  never  to  signify  a  thing,  which 
is  unintelligible,  or  contradictory  to  reason.  Some 
doctrines  are  said  to  have  been  mysterious  before 
they  were  revealed;  but  there  is  no  instance  in  which 
a  revealed  truth  is  calle,d  a  mystery.^ 

*  The  writers  on  the  trinitarian  side  of  the  conti'overs}',  have 
ilvvelt  with  much  apparent  fondness  on  the  propensity  of  unita- 
rians to  use  their  understanding  in  judging  of  religious  subjects; 
and  none,  perhaps,  has  employed  more  words  in  discussing  this 
topic,  than  Mr.  \Yilliam  Burgh.  A  large  portion  of  his  long 
Reply  to  Mr.  Lindsey's  Apology,  is  occupied  in  proving,  that 
there  are  many  things  incomprehensible.  After  having  fully  es- 
tablished this  point,  he  lays  it  down  as  an  axiom,  '.hat  "About 
matters  which  we  do  not  comprehend,  it  is  obvious,  that  we  can- 
not with  certaint)j  say  any  thing."  p.  23.  Does  he  mean,  that  we 
cannot  say  ivith  certainty  that  grass  grows,  the  sun  shines,  or 
that  a  man  moves  when  he  walks,  because  we  cannot  compreliend 
these  operations?  Such  are  the  premises  from  which  he  draws  tlie 
conclusion,  that  we  cannot  reason  about  the  attributes  and  dis- 
pensations of  the  Deity. 

His  words  are,  "The  infinite  and  incomprehensible  majesty  of 
God  is  an  object  beyond  the  limits  of  reason;  we  are  incapable  of 
forming  any  idea  of  him."  p.  23.    Can  we  form  no  idea,  then,  of 


204! 

These  introductory  remarks  have  extended  to  a 
rather  greater  length,  than  I  have  been  aware.  We 
will  now  attend  to  the  principal  object  of  this  letter, 
w^hich  is  a  consideration  of  certain  texts  of  scripture, 
and  especially  those,  which  you  have  selected  in  proof 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  As  you  profess  to  take  these 
texts  from  Jones's  work  on  the  trinity,  and  as  you  call 
this  *^an  inestimable  work,"  and  recommend  it  very 
highly  to  your  readers,  it  will  not  be  thought  foreign 
to  the  purpose  to  say  a  few  words  on  its  character. 

It  could  not  but  excite  a  little  astonishment  to  see 
a  book  quoted,  as  of  the  highest  authority  on  this  most 
important  point  of  controversy,  which  scarcely  a  scho- 
lar or  critic  has  before  quoted  with  approbation,  since 
the  day  it  was  written.  That  it  should  be  a  popular 
book  among  the  uninformed,  who  take  the  author's 
results  as  truths,  without  being  able  to  follow  him 
through  his  show  of  criticism,  is  not  wonderful;  but 
that  a  scholar  and  biblical  critic,  who  can  detect  his 
fallacies  in  every  page,  and  perceive  the  cloud  of  pre- 

the  power,  the  wisdom,  and  goodness  of  Godr  How  can  we  wor- 
ship a  being  of  whom  we  can  form  no  idea?  Or  how  can  we  talk 
of  the  benevolence,  the  mercy,  the  love  of  God,  or  indeed  of  any 
of  his  attributes,  if  they  are  totally  beyond  our  conception?  Do 
we  not  reason  perpetually  about  the  attributes  of  God?  Do  we  not 
say,  that  one  event  indicates  his  ifisrfom,  another  his  poit?er,  another 
\\s  goodness:  and  do  we  not  say,  that  the  justice  of  God  will 
award  an  ade(iuate  punishment  to  the  guilt  of  a  sinner?  We 
do  not  comprehend  these  attributes  fully;  yet  still,  as  far  as  we 
do  comprehend  them,  we  can  reason  about  them,  as  well  as  about 
the  innumerable  operations  of  nature,  which  we  do  not  compre- 
hend. The  character  of  this  book  may  be  very  easily  imagined, 
when  it  is  known,  that  the  specimens  here  quoted  are  some  oX 
the  author's  Jirst  principles. 


205 

judice  darkening  and  confounding  every  just  princi- 
ple of  criticism  and  interpretation,  should  publicly 
sanction  and  recommend  a  work  of  this  character,  is 
hardly  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  usual  mode  of  judg- 
ing of  motives  from  actions. 

It  is  the  way  of  this  writer  to  bring  together  short 
passages  selected  at  random  from  different  parts  of 
the  scriptures,  each  of  which  contains  some  of  the 
same,  or  similar  words  to  the  other;  and  to  infer 
immediately  that  they  mean  the  same  thing.  No  re- 
gard is  had  to  the  context,  nor  does  he  seem  ever  to 
have  dreamed,  that  the  same  word  may  mean  very 
different  things,  when  used  in  different  connexions. 
In  this  way  you  may  prove  the  trinity  from  the  Koran, 
and  show  the  Yedas  of  the  Hindoos,  the  Talmuds  and 
Targums  of  the  Jews,  to  be  treatises  written  in  supr 
port  of  orthodoxy.  In  short,  you  may  prove  any 
thing  from  any  book. 

A  few  examples  from  the  work  in  question  will  ex- 
hibit the  grounds  of  these  remarks. 

John  iii.  aJ9.  ^*He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bride- 
groom/^ 

Isaiah  liv.  5.  '*Thy  maker  is  thy  husband,  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  is  his  name,'' 

From  these  two  texts  thus  brought  together,  the 
author  infers,  that  Christ  is  the  Supreme  God. 

John  iii.  6.  *'That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit J^ 

1  John  V.  4.  "Whatsoever  is  born  of  God^ 

This  is  his  first  proof  of  the  "divinity  of  the  Holy 
Grhost."  To  prove  "the  trinity  in  unity"  he  quotes 
the  following  text. 

Psalm  xxxiii.  6.  "By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were 
the  heavens  made,  and  all  the   host  of  them  by  th^ 
S8 


S06 

bieath  of  his  mouth."  On  this  text  he  remarks,  "the 
whole  trinity^  therefore,  created  the  world."  Another 
argument  for  the  trinity  in  unity  is  drawn  from  the 
following  collocation  of  texts. 

Rom.  vii.  25.  "/  myself  serve  the  law  of  God.^^ 
Gal.  vi.  2.  '^Fulfil  the  law  of  Christ." 
Rom.  viii.  2.  '^The  laiv  of  the  sjnrit  of  life." 
By  the  same  kind  of  reasoning  might  St.  Paul  be 
proved  to  be  a  person  in  the  trinity,  because  he  says^ 
Rom.  A'ii.  23.  "TAe  law  of  my  mind." 
I  will  add  only  one  example  more. 
John  vi.  45.  "They  shall  be  all  taught  of  God." 
Gal.  i  12.  "Neither  was  1  taught  it,  but  by  the  re- 
velation of  Jesus  Christ." 

John  xiv.  26.  "The  Comforter,  the  Holy  Spirit, 
will  teach  you  all  things." 

Because  teaching  is  here  predicated  of  God,  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  supposed 
to  follow,  that  these  three  are  one  and  the  same  God. 
Upon  this  principle,  why  should  not  every  person, 
who  is  said  in  the  scriptures  to  teach^  be  considered 
as  sustaining  the  same  character?  Paul  and  Barnabas 
^'taught  much  people."  Acts  xi.  26.  Therefore, 
Paul  and  Barnabas  constitute  a  part  of  the  ^Hrinity 
in  unity."* 

*  This  paralogistic  mode  of  reasoning  appears  to  have  been  a 
very  favourite  one,  with  a  certain  class  of  writers.  Mr.  Burgh 
has  adopted  it  tliroughout  his  book  in  very  close  imitation  of 
Jones. 

In  one  part  of  the  scriptures,  mention  is  made  oC'the  grace  of 
God,""  and  in  another,  of  "the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
from  which  Mr.  Burgh  thinks  it  a  logical  inference,  that  "the  god- 
hcnd  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  the  same,"  chap.  iii.  §  23. 


207 

These  extracts  give  a  fair  specimen  of  Uie  gene- 
ral  character  of  Jones's  work,  so  far  as  it  regards  his 
manner  of  reasoning.  To  say  nothing  of  his  unac- 
countable perversion,  and  numerous  errors  of  criticism, 
what  respect  can  we  have  for  the  candour  or  fairness 
of  a  writer,  who  descends  on  serious  subjects  to  such 
a  childish  play  upon  words,  as  these  specimens  exhi- 
bit?  Is  it  possible,  that  the  cause  of  the  trinity  re- 
quires such  a  support?  And  above  all,  is  this  to  be 

Again,  Paul  at  one  time  calls  himself  "a  servant  of  God,"  and 
at  another,  "the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ;"  therefore,  Christ  is  the 
most  high  God.  Sec.  35. 

The  apostle  speaks  on  a  certain  occasion  of  "ministering  the 
gospel  of  God,"  and  soon  after  adds,  that  he  had  "preached  the 
gospel  of  Christ."  It  follows,  according  to  this  new  species  of 
biblical  logic,  that  "Jesus  Christ  is  one  with  the  Father,  God." 
Sec.  51. 

After  these  examples,  and  the  extracts  before  made  from  this 
writer,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  he  acknowledged  him- 
self to  be  "altogether  unread  in  theological  disputations.^^  p.  221. 
It  was  most  unfortunate,  that  his  evil  stars  should  lead  him  to 
write  a  book  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  pages,  in  defence  of  the 
trinity,  if  he  was  conscious  of  being  thus  ignorant  of  the  subject. 

In  reading  such  books  as  these  of  Jones  and  Burgh,  one  can- 
not but  be  forcibly  reminded  of  bishop  Newton's  remarks  in  his 
Dissertation  on  the  Difficulties  of  Scripture.  He  speaks  of  men, 
"who  interpret  scripture  according  to  their  opinions,  and  frame 
not  their  opinions  according  to  scripture.  They  quote  the  scrip- 
ture, and  one  would  think  they  understood  at  least  what  they 
quote;  but  alas,  in  their  quotations  they  manifestly  regard  the 
bare  words  more  than  the  meaning,  and  so  there  is  but  something 
apposite  in  the  sound,  no  matter  how  remote  it  is  in  the  significa- 
tion."   See  Nisbett's  Messiah,  p.  11. 

Another  writer,  who  is  fond  of  interpreting  the  scriptures  after 
the  manner  of  Jones,  is  Dr.  Nares  of  Biddenden.  See  his  Remarks 
on  the  Improved  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  221. 


adopted  as  a  true   mode  of  interpreting  the  scrip- 
tures? 

But  the  doctrinal  part  of  this  book  is  not  its  worst 
part.  The  spirit  and  temper  with  which  it  is  written^ 
are  as  distant  from  the  spirit  and  temper  of  Christ,  as 
the  doctrines  it  defends  are  contrary  to  the  truths  he 
taught.  Let  any  one  read  the  introduction,  and  the 
letter  at  the  end  of  the  book,  and  see  how  much  he 
will  find  of  the  mild  and  gentle  spirit  inculcated  in 
the  gospel.  Let  him  especially  observe  in  what  man- 
ner the  writer  constantly  speaks  of  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  the  friend  of  Newton,  and  one  of  the  most 
able,  learned,  and  pious  men  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lived.  In  one  place  he  charges  him  with  professing 
to  "believe  in  two  different  Gods;"  and  in  another^ 
after  censuring  him,  with  a  sneer,  for  changing  some 
of  his  religious  opinions,  he  says,  "and  to  put  the 
best  face  he  could  upon  his  unbelief,  he  spent  much 
of  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  writing  ambiguous  cum^f 
ments,  and  finding  various  readings,  that  is,  in  pick- 
Ing  holes  in  the  Bible."*  Such  is  the  work,  which 
you  seriously  recommend  to  your  readers,  and  to 
which  you  refer  them  for  religious  knowledge.! 

The  passages  of  scripture  usually  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  the  trinity  I  shall  consider  in  the  following 
order. 

I.  Those  in  which  Christ  is  called,  or  supposed  to 
be  called,  God. 

*  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  New  York,  1813,  p.  1G9. 

t  This  is  the  work,  which  the  editor  of  the  American  edition  of 
Festivals  and  Fasts  says,  in  his  usual  summary  way,  "has  put  tlie 
question,  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  be  revealed  in  scrip- 
ture, beyond  all  further  controversy!"  p.  2^2 1, 


209 

II.  Those  in  which  such  properties  are  ascribed  to 
him,  as  it  is  thought  could  be  ascribed  only  to  God, 
or  to  a  being  equal  to  God;  and  some  of  those,  which 
are  believed  to  contain  general  proofs  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  trinity. 

I.  As  Jesus  is  sometimes  called  God  in  the  scrip- 
tures, it  has  been  inferred,  that  he  must  be  the  Supreme 
Being.  This  might  be  an  argument  of  some  force, 
if  it  were  not  true,  that  the  sacred  writers  often  apply 
the  same  title  to  other  persons.  On  examining  the 
scriptures  we  shall  discover,  that  it  was  not  uncom- 
mon for  those,  who  were  eminent  for  their  virtues,  or 
dignity  of  station,  to  be  called  Gods.  ^''And  the 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  see,  I  have  made  thee  a  God 
unto  Pharaoh."  Exod.  vii.  1.  "Thou  shalk  not  revile 
the  Gods,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people."  xxii. 
28.  <'For  the  Lord  your  God,  is  God  of  Gods." 
Deut.  x.  17.  ^'God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of 
the  mighty;  he  judgeth  among  the  Gods."  Ps.  Ixxxii. 
1.  "I  have  said  ye  are  Gods,  v.  6.  ^Mraong  the 
Gods,  there  is  none  like  unto  thee,  0  Lord."  Ps» 
Ixxxvi.  8.  ^^Worship  him,  all  ye  Gods."  xcvii.  7. 
The  word  God  in  all  these  passages  means  the  jJ^'O' 
jjhets,  ihe  judges,  or  magistrates  of  Israel.  The  same 
word  is  sometimes  rendered  judges;  as  in  Exodus 
xxi.  6.  "'llien  his  master  shall  bring  him  unto  the 
judges,"  literally,  "unto  the  Gods."  In  another 
place  the  same  word  is  translated  angels.  Psal.  viii. 
5.  '"For  thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than  the 
ANGELS,"  or  "GoDS.^**-     From  these  texts,  and  from 

*  The  original  word  is  D\1  Sj^.  The  passage  is  rendereil  by 
Jsrom,  pan  I  o  minus  a  Deo;  by  Aquilla  and  Symmachiis, /J^eeA:"  ^' 
Trochee  ©eev;  and  by  the  Seventy,  i^^ot-xv  rt  rs^-j'  «-/7:;>«vi.  Vid. 
Le  Clerq,  et  Sept.  Edit.  Brdt.  in  Loc. 


SIO 

many  others,  which  might  be  added,  it  appears,  that 
the  title  which  is  supposed  to  prove  Jesus  to  have 
been  the  Supreme  Being,  was  given  to  Moses,  the 
judges  and  magistrates  of  Israel,  and  to  angels^  as 
well  as  to  Christ. 

This  use  of  the  term  exactly  coincides  with  the 
words  of  our  Saviour  himself,  when  he  says,  "Is  it 
not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  ye  are  Gods?  If  he 
called  them  Gods,  unto  ivhom  the  word  of  God  camey 
and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken,"  &c.  John  x.  34, 
35.  This  is  a  key  to  all  the  passages  above  cited, 
and  to  all  others  in  which  the  word  God  is  applied  to 
any  other  person,  than  the  Supreme  Being.  The 
word  of  God  came  to  Moses,  the  prophets,  the  rulers 
of  Israel,  and  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  to  every 
good  man.  For  being  thus  eminently  favoured,  they 
were  sometimes  called  Gods.  A^ith  what  remark- 
able propriety  may  this  application  be  made  to  the 
Lord  Jesus?  What  being  has  ever  appeared  among 
men,  who  was  so  highly  endowed  with  every  divine 
gift?  To  no  one  has  the  word  of  God  come  with  so 
much  power.  Surely,  if  the  prophets  and  wise  men 
of  old  were  called  Gods  by  way  of  distinction,  this 
title  may  be  applied  with  vastly  greater  force  and  pro- 
priety to  Christ,  who  was  so  highly  exalted  above 
them  all.  And  yet,  this  is  very  far  from  proving  him 
to  be  the  Supreme  Being,  any  more  than  the  other 
persons,  who  were  called  gods  for  similar  reasons. 

It  is  also  to  be  observed,  that  none  of  the  names  of 
the  Deity,  except  this  one  of  God,  are  ever  applied  to 
Christ,  or  to  any  other  person.  He  is  never  called 
the  Supreme  Being,  the  Most  High,  Jehovah,  the 
Eternal  God,  the  only  True  God;  the  living  God,  the 


211 

God  of  Gods,  Holy  God.  If  lie  were  actually  ibc 
Supreme  God,  is  it  not  strange,  that  he  should  never 
have  been  called  by  any  of  these  titles?  But  the  truth 
is,  whenever  he  is  spoken  of  as  God,  it  is  in  a  sense, 
which  he  himself  defined,  when  he  said,  "those  are 
called  Gods  unto  ichom  the  word  of  God  cameJ'^ 

A  prominent  text,  which  you  bring  forward  in 
proof  of  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ,  is  the  noted  one 
in  Isaiah  ix.  6.  <'For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us 
a  son  is  given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his 
shoulder;  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father, 
the  Prince  of  Peace."  Such  are  the  words  as  you 
have  quoted  them,  and  as  they  stand  in  the  common 
version  of  the  Bible.  But  it  was  hardly  to  be  ex- 
pected, that  this  text  would  be  quoted  at  the  present 
day,  without  a  word  of  comment  or  explanation,  to  let 
it  be  known,  that  its  most  important  parts  are  at  least 
a  very  doubtful,  and  probably  a  false  rendering  of  the 
original. 

The  prophecy  in  this  passage  undoubtedly  alludes 
to  the  Messiah,  and  consequently,  the  titles  which  it 
contains  are  to  be  applied  to  him.  The  only  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  titles,  or  names,  which  were 
adopted  by  king  James's  translators,  have  the  same 
meaning,  as  those,  which  were  originally  written  by 
the  prophet?  This  can  be  ascertained  only  by  a  cri- 
tical examination  into  the  meaning  of  the  original 
words,  aided  by  a  profound  knowledge  of  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  were  written,  and  of  the  ancient 
translations.  Such  an  examination  has  been  repeat- 
edly made  by  the  most  learned  men  of  different  reli- 
gious sentiments,  who  have  almost  unanimou.sly  con- 


S12 

ciined  ill  a  result,  which  proves  the  rendering  of  our 
common  version  to  be  more  or  less  defective.  Is  it 
dealing  fairly,  therefore,  with  those,  who  have  not 
the  means  of  information,  to  represent  this  text,  as  of 
undoubted  authority  in  its  present  literal  reading? 
Should  they  not,  at  least,  be  told  what  they  are  to  re- 
ceive with  implicit  confidence,  and  what  with  cau- 
tion? Is  it  justifiable  thus  to  confound  truth  with 
error,  and  to  give  countenance  to  jiopular  prejudice, 
by  making  the  scriptures  speak  what  their  writers 
never  intended? 

It  is  not  denied,  that  commentators  have  found  much 
diflBculty  in  this  text,  on  account  of  the  ambiguity 
of  some  of  the  Hebrew  words;  yet  they  almost  uni- 
versally- agree  in  giving  it  a  meaning  different  from 
the  one  retained  in  our  English  version. 

The  application  of  the  two  first  titles  is  sufficiently 
obvious;  and  there  seems  to  have  been  very  little  dif- 
ference of  opinion  about  them,  except  that  in  the  judg- 
ment of  some  critics  they  ought  so  to  be  united,  and  of 
others,  to  be  taken  separately.  But  whether  they 
should  be  read  Wonderful  and  Counsellor^  or  Won- 
derfiil  Counsellor,  is  of  little  consequence  in  regard 
to  the  general  meaning  and  application  of  the  terms. 
Our  Suviour  might  justly  be  called  ivonderful,  in  the 
astonishing  works  he  performed;  and  a  counsellor ,  or 
a  wonderful  counsellor,  in  the  admirable  system  of 
religion  he  has  published  to  the  world;  in  its  doc- 
trines, precepts,  admonitions,  directions,  and  pro- 
mises; giving  evidence,  that  he  was  aided,  instructed; 
and  empowered  from  above. 

The  next  title,  the  Mighty  Gtod,  is  allowed  to  be 
a  false  translation,  although  there  have  been  various 


S13 

opiuions  in  regard  to  the  exact  import  of  the  original. 
Le  Clerc,  who  was  a  triiiitariaii,  and  as  profound  a 
scholar  in  biblical  learning,  perhaps,  as  any  other 
person,  renders  the  passage  thus;  ^^  Wonderful,  Di- 
vine Counsellor,  Mighty.^'  Christ  was  a  divine 
counsellor  in  having  derived  all  his  counsels  and 
precepts  from  God;  he  was  might?/  in  the  miracles  he 
performed,  and  the  divine  powers  he  possessed.* 

The  fourth  title,  Everlasting  Father,  is  trans- 
lated by  bishop  Lowth,  "'the  Father  of  the  everlast- 

*  The  principal  difficulty  in  this  passage  seems  to  have  arisen 
from  the  douhtful  meaning  of  the  word  7K,  which  is  sometimes 
rendered  God,  sometimes  ruler,  or  magistrate,  and  is  some- 
times used  in  the  sense  of  an  adjective  to  denote  excellence  or 
distinction.  Adhibetur  de  rebus  inagnis  in  suo  genere  eximiis, 
qufe  Hebraeis  divin*  dici  solent,  quasi  earum  vel  prsestantia  et 
magnitudo  vel  natura  ad  Deum  solum  auctorem  referri  posset, 
velut  7J<  ^HN  cedri  divince,  ^X  mH  monies  diviui.  Vid.  Si- 
mon, in  verb. 

This  latter  sense  is  preferred  by  Le  Clerc.  He  unites  the 
word  ^J<  with  T^V  consiliarius,  vel  cousultor,  and  renders 
them  consultor  divinus,  and  gives  as  his  reason,  ut  intelligatur 
Messlas  futurus  consultor  divinus,\'Q\  cujus  divina  essent  cousi- 
silia;  hoc  est  prtscepta,  ut  revera  sunt.  This  also  agrees  with 
what  is  said  of  him  in  Isaiah  xi.  2.  "The  spirit  of  counsel  and 
viight  shall  rest  upon  him." 

There  is  tnuch  suspicion,  that  the  word  H^  was  not  written  in 
the  original  Hebrew,  as  there  are  no  correspouding  words  in  either 
of  the  ancient  Greek  versions  of  the  Seventy,  Acquila,  Symma- 
chus,  or  Theodotian.  Acquila  renders  the  clause  exvt<,ctroi,  o-vf*,- 
lievXos,  i<!-x^?oi,  which  Le  Clerc  approves,  although  he  seems  to 
think  i<rx^?oi  was  put  for  ^}^.  It  is  perhaps  more  probable, 
that  it  was  intended  to  be  the  rendering  of  T^D^  "^''t'-  Clerici 
Comment,  in  Loc. 

^9 


S14 

iiig  age/'  and  by  Grotius,  "Father  of  the  future 
age/'  or  ^^of  the  age  to  come."  This  was  strict- 
ly appropriate  to  Christ.  He  was  the  founder  of  a 
new  dispensation,  and  of  a  pure  and  holy  religion. 
He  was  the  head  of  the  church,  and  came  to  bestow 
the  means  of  salvation  on  mankind,  and  to  confer  in- 
estimable benefits,  which  should  continue  through  all 
ages.* 

The  application  of  the  last  title  no  one  can  mis- 
take. He  was  eminently  the  prince  of  jieace  in  giv- 
ing a  religion  to  the  world,  whose  direct  tendency 
is  to  promote  peace  among  men. 

Such  are  the  renderings,  which  the  most  able 
critics  have  given  of  this  text.  They  are  such  as  the 
original  easily  receives,  and  such  as  are  peculiarly 
applicable  to  the  character  of  Christ,  as  it  was  exhi- 
bited in  his  life  and  religion.  The  text,  thus  ex- 
plained, gives  no  support  to  the  doctrine  of  the  su- 

Grotius  takes  the  words  in  a  different  combination,  and  trans- 
lates them  Consulter  of  the  Mighty  God,  (Consultator  Dei  Fortis,) 
or,  as  he  explains  it,  one  who  in  all  things  asked  counsel  of  God. 
Although  the  words  may  bear  this  construction,  it  does  not  seem 
to  be  so  natural  as  the  other, 

*  The  original  words  ^^  OJ^»  literally  translated  mean,  Father 
of  the  Jlge.  They  are  rendered  by  Le  Clerc,  Pater  perpetuus, 
because,  as  he  says,  Christ  is  the  perpetual  or  everlasting  father 
of  all,  who  shall  believe  in  his  religion. 

Grotius  translates  them.  Pater  futuri  seculi,  and  adds.  Pater 
seculi  est  qui  multos  post  se  relicturus  sit  posteros,  et  in  longum 
tempus.  Thh  future  age  is  the  christian  dispensation.  Christ 
was  the  father  of  this  dispensation,  in  as  much  as  it  was  establish- 
ed through  his  instrumentality,  by  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as 
were  communicated  to  him  by  Jehovah,  and  also  to  his  apostles  in 
such  a  degree  as  to  convince  men  of  its  truth  and  authority.  Vid. 
Grot.  Annotat.  in  Vet.  Test.  Tom.  ii.  p.  18. 


215 

preme  divinity  of  Christ,  and  contains  uotliing  more 
than  several  titles  and  epithets  prophetically  applied 
to  him,  and  expressive  of  the  character,  which  he  ac- 
tually sustained.  The  translation  may  be  expressed 
in  the  following  terms.  *^And  his  name  shall  be 
called  Wonderful,  Divine  Counsellor,  Mighty,  Fa- 
ther of  the  age  to  come,  Prince  of  Peace.''  These 
results  are  drawn,  it  must  be  remembered,  from  the 
critical  expositions  of  trinitarians. 

Even  admitting  the  received  translation  to  be  cor- 
rect, it  does  not  prove  Christ  to  be  the  Supreme  God. 
We  have  already  seen,  that  the  title  God  Mas  often 
applied  to  other  persons  by  way  of  distinction  besides 
Christ,  even  to  all  to  "whom  the  word  of  God  came." 
It  may  certainly  be  given,  therefore,  with  great  pro- 
priety to  him,  who  was  appointed  a  special  messenger 
of  the  counsels  and  will  of  Jehovah,  and  who  is  "ex- 
alted above  all  principality,  and  power,  and  might, 
and  dominion."  Hence,  if  the  name  be  translated 
God,  it  cannot  be  accounted  a  proof  of  the  supreme 
divinity  of  Christ.  But  I  do  not  wish  to  vindicate 
this  rendering,  as  the  voice  of  criticism  is  deci- 
dedly against  it.* 

*  In  this  text  the  learned  Dr.  Owen  found  an  argument  for  the 
HYPosTATicAL  UNION.  "That  the  Same  pcrson,"  sajs  he,  "should 
be  the  mighty  God,  and  a  child  born,  is  neither  conceivable,  nor 
possible,  nor  can  be  true,  but  by  the  union  of  the  divine  and  hu- 
man natures  in  the  same  person."  Declaration  of  the  Glorious 
Mystery  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  God  and  Man,  p.  290,  298. 

This  is  the  way  men  reason  and  build  up  doctrines,  when,"  as 
bishop  Newton  says,  "they  regard  the  bare  words  more  than  the 
meaning."  They  attach  meanings  to  words,  which  are  inconceiv- 
able and  impossible,  and  then  invent  a  scheme  to  make  them  con- 
ceivable,'possible,  and  triie. 


2i6 

iVnother  text,  whicli  you  cite,  is  John  i.  1.  ^'In 
the  he^inning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with 
God,  and  the  Word  was  Grod.*' 

Before  we  can  have  any  just  conceptions  of  the 
meaning  of  this  text,  or  of  tlie  introduction  to  St. 
John's  gospel,  we  must  know  in  what  sense  he  used 
tlie  term  Logos,  or  Word.  This  term  has  more  than 
thirty  distinct  significations  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  it  is  ohvious,  that  we  cannot  interpret  any  pas- 
sage in  which  it  is  contained,  without  first  fixing  its 
meaning  as  it  is  used  in  tliat  place.  We  cannot  un- 
derstand language,  if  we  do  not  know  the  meaning  of 
the  words  of  which  it  is  composed. 

The   best  mode,  perhaps,  of  ascertaining  in  what 
sense  the  evangelist  used  the  word,  is  to  inquire  for 
what  purpose  he  wrote  his  gospel.     He  tells  us,  that 
one  of  his  principal  designs  in  writing  was  to  prove, 
that  ^* Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God/' 
From  this  declaration,  the  opinion  would  seem  to  have 
prevailed   in  those    times,    that   Jesus   was   not   the 
Christ;   and  from   many  passages  in  St.  John's  gos- 
pel we  are  led  to  believe,  that  it  was  a  special  pur- 
pose with   him  to  correct  this  and  other  errors,  re- 
specting the  nature  and  person  of  Christ.     If  we  can 
ascertain  wliat  these  errors  were,  and  also  what  con- 
nexion they   had  with  the  prevalent  doctrine  of  the 
Logos,  we  shall  have  some  clue  to  the  true  interpre- 
tation of  this  passage. 

The  Platonic  philosophy  was  at  this  time  very  pre- 
valent in  those  countries,  where  the  christian  religion 
was  preached.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  this  philoso- 
phy, that  the  Supreme  Being  did  not  create  the 
world,  but  assigned  this  work  to  a  subordinate  be- 


217 

iug,  whom  the  Platonists  called  Logos.  Philo,  and 
the  Alexandrian  Jews,  who  embraced  this  philosophy, 
perceiving  some  analogy  between  this  use  of  the  term, 
and  those  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which 
the  Word,  or  Logos,  is  personified,  fell  easily  into  the 
belief,  that  the  term  there  used  denoted  some  being. 
Personal  properties  are  often  attributed  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  ivord  of  God.  '^By  the  word  of  the 
Lord  were  the  heavens  made."  The  Word  of  the 
Lord  is  said  to  come,  to  speak,  to  go.  ^'His  Word 
runneth  very  swiftly."  It  was  hence  inferred,  that 
the  Word  of  God,  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, was  a  being  distinct  from  God,  and  the  same 
as  the  Logos  of  Plato. *- 

*  Before  St.  John  wrote  his  gospel,  Philo  hail  written  largely 
on  the  Platonic  philosophy.  As  he  was  a  Jew,  and  well  versed 
in  the  philosophy  of  the  east,  he  seems  to  have  combined  some  of 
the  peculiarities  of  these  two  systems.  He  has  a  great  deal  to 
say  about  the  Logos,  and  what  is  particularly  worthy  of  observa- 
tion, he  personifies  it  under  difteient  characters,  and  applies  it 
sometimes  to  men,  sometimes  to  anj^els,  and  at  others  to  God 
himself. 

Eum  (Aayaf)  uo ^uy/$>.ov  Philo  noniinat.  Vid.  Kuinoel.  Pro- 
legomera  ad  Evang.  lohan,  §  7;  De  Xoya  lohannis.  Philo  omnes 
Dei  oratures,  et  legates  vocare  solet  Aoyaj/?.  Rosenmull.  Schol. 
in  Johan.  chap.  i.  v.  1. 

As  it  was  common  in  the  time  of  St.  John  to  personify  the  Lo- 
gos, and  apply  it  as  a  name  to  persons  or  beings  sustaining  dif- 
ferent characters,  he  did  not  depart  from  the  customary  use  of 
language  in  employing  the  word  after  a  similar  manner. 

There  are  many  instances  of  this  personification  in  the  gospels 
and  epistles.  "lie  that  rejecteth  me,  and  rcceiveth  not  my  words, 
hath  one  that  judgeth  him;  the  word  (Logos)  which  I  have  spoken, 
the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day."  John  xii.  48.  Here 
the  Logos  is  made  a  judge.     "The  Logos  of  God  is  quick  and 


21^ 

Another  opinion  somewhat  analo^^ous  to  this,  in 
mauy  respects,  had  its  origin  in  the  Oriental  philoso- 
phy. Those  wlio  embraced  this  system  were  called 
Gnostics.  They  maintained,  that  there  was  but  one 
Supreme  Mind,  but  from  this  was  derived,  by  a  sort 
of  emanation,  a  vast  number  of  subordinate  intelli- 
gences, or  jEons,  of  various  orders.  To  one  of  these 
beings  they  gave  the  name  of  Logos.* 

Out  of  these  notions  sprung  up  many  errors  in  re- 
gard to  the  nature  and  character  of  Christ.  The 
Gentile  converts,  who  were  generally  Platonists,  de- 
lighted in  discovering  resemblances  between  their 
philosophy  and  the  christian  religion,  and  among 
others  they  fancied  Christ  to  be  an  intermediate  being, 
and  -the  same  as  their  Logos, 

powerful,"  or  more  properly,  "alive  and  active."  Heb.  iv.  12. 
"The  word  (Logos)  which  God  sent  unto  the  children  of  fsrael, 
preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Chriatj  he  (this  Logos)  is  lord  over 
all."  Acts  X.  36.  Here  the  Logos  is  said  to  preach,  and  to  be 
lord  over  all.  In  all  these  places  Logos  evidently  means  the 
gospel,  or  the  christian  doctrine;  but  still,  it  is  represented  as  a 
person.  For  other  examples,  and  a  comparison  between  the  use 
of  the  word  by  Philo,  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  see 
Jones's  Ecclesiastical  Researches,  chap.  vi. 

*  There  are  also  strong  evidences,  in  many  parts  of  St.  John'^ 
gospel,  drawn  from  other  circumstances  besides  what  he  says  of 
the  Logos,  that  he  often  had  in  view  the  Gnostics.  He  uses  many 
of  the  terms,  which  had  become  technical  in  their  philosophy,  and 
probably  to  correct  the  errors,  to  which  they  had  given  currency 
by  an  improper  use  of  them.  Among  these  terms  are  f^ovoyewi, 
xctfii,  ^ut;,  <pai,  aXti^eiot,  TXtiqufiLix.,  Kulnoel.  Prolegom.  §  5.  De 
Consilio  Johanni  in  scribendis  Comment,  proposito.  There 
can  be  little  doubt,  that  in  some  places  at  least,  he  used  the 
words  Light  and  Life  with  this  application.  Jones's  Ecclesiastical 
Researrlu'S,  chap,  xviii. 


319 

For  a  similar  reason  the  Gnostics  believed  Christ 
to  be  one  of  the  hii;hest  orders  of  ^ons;  and,  as  it 
was  a  doctrine  of  this  sect,  that  matter  was  the  source 
of  evil,  they  rejected  the  humanity  of  Christ,  alleging 
that  no  pure  intelligence,  lii^e  him,  could  possibly  be 
confined  in  so  unworthy  and  contaminating  a  habita- 
tion as  a  corporeal  body.  They  maintained,  that  his 
visible  body  was  a  phantom,  and  that  he  died  and 
arose  from  the  dead  only  in  appearance. 

The  errors  of  the  Cerinthians,  a  sect  of  consider- 
able note  in  the  first  century,  seem  to  have  taken  their 
rise  in  these  false  notions  of  the  Logos,  and  of  inter- 
mediate beings.  They  taught,  that  Christ,  and  Jesus, 
were  two  distinct  beings,  or  persons.  They  suppos- 
ed Christ  to  be  an  iEon,  or  emanation  from  the  Su- 
preme Being,  who  descended  upon  Jesus  in  the  form 
of  a  dove  at  the  time  of  his  baptism.  Before  this 
union,  they  supposed  Jesus  to  have  been  nothing 
more  than  a  common  man.  When  he  was  taken  to 
be  crucified,  the  divine  being,  called  Christ,  left  him, 
and  the  man  Jesus  only  died,  and  rose  from  the 
dead.* 

Such  were  the  opinions  concerning  the  Logos,  and 
such  the  errors  which  were  growing  out  of  them  at 
the  time  when  St.  John  wrote.  To  one  or  other 
of  these  philosophical  sects,  it  must  be  rememl)ered, 
almost  all  the  early  christian  converts  belonged  be- 
fore their  conversion.  The  apostle  must,  therefore, 
have  considered  it  a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  purify  a  fountain,  which  threatened  to  contaminate 

*  Vid.  Irensei.  adv.  H«res.  lib.  iii.  c.  12.  ut  cit.  in  Kuinocl.  Pro- 
lesom.  §  5. 


220 

and  poison  the  whole  scheme  of  christian  doctrine.  If 
this  system  were  pursued,  Christianity  was  likely  to 
become  ingrafted  into  the  wildest  systems  of  heathen- 
ism. The  root  of  the  difficulty  lay  in  the  ideal  and 
false  notions,  which  prevailed  respecting  the  personal 
existence  of  the  Logos,  acting  in  the  character  of  an 
intermediate  being,  distinct  from  God  and  from  men. 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  that  the  principal  purpose  of 
St.  John,  in  what  he  has  said  of  the  Logos,  was  to 
remove  this  difficulty,  and  to  clear  up  a  subject,  which 
the  unnatural  mixture  of  heathen  philosophy  with 
Christianity  had  tended  to  perplex  and  obscure. 

If  we  keep  these  things  in  mind,  it  will  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  perceive  what  he  designed  to  teach  in  his  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos.  Wc  may  not  be  able  to  give  an 
exact  definition  of  the  term,  as  it  was  understood  by 
him,  because  it  may  have  been  used  to  express  ideas  of 
the  Deity,  some  of  which  have  since  passed  away  with 
the  controversies  of  those  times;  yet  we  can  hardly 
mistake  its  general  application,  or  the  object  of  the 
writer.  He  would  show,  that  the  Logos  is  not  a 
'person,  or  being,  and  yet  it  is  something,  which  is 
with  God,  and  which  may  be  called  God.  It  follows, 
that  it  must  designate  some  quality,  or  qualities  of  the 
Deity,  which  have  always  resided  in  him,  by  which 
he  has  created  all  things,  and  by  which  he  still  mani- 
fests himself  in  his  works, — such  qualities,  in  short, 
as  make  him  the  Supreme  God.  It  is  not  of  so 
much  importance  what  name  we  give  to  these  quali- 
ties, if  we  only  retain  a  correct  idea  of  their  nature. 
Periiaps  we  shall  not  deviate  far  from  the  true  signi- 
iication  of  the  word  Logos,  as  used  by  the  evangelist, 


22i 

if  we  suppose  it  to  denote  the  poieer  of   the  Deity 
actin,^  under  the  guidance  of  his  wisdom. 

With  this  signification  of  the  term,  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  first  part  of  John's  gospel  is  natural  and 
easy.  In  the  beginning  ivas  the  Logos^  and  the. 
Logos  was  with  God;  that  is,  the  power  of  God, 
aided  in  its  operations  by  divine  wisdom,  has  been 
with  God  from  the  beginning,  or  always.  It  is  not 
a  being,  which  emanated  from  the  Deity,  and  which 
exists  in  a  state  separate  from  him.  And  the  Logos 
was  God;  the  qualities  of  the  Deity  deaoted  by  tjje 
Logos  are  essential  to  his  character  as  God,  and  not 
to  be  considered  as  constituting  any  other  being.  The 
same  ivas  in  the  beginning  ivith  God.  All  things 
were  made  by  him;  and  without  him  was  not  any 
thing  made  that  urns  made.  By  the  power  and  wis- 
dom of  God  was  every  thing  created,  and  without  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  and  the  guidance  of  tliis  wis- 
dom, was  not  any  thing  originally  made.  This  was 
probably  said  in  allusion  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Pla- 
tonists,  who  believed  the  creation  to  have  been  the 
work  of  a  subordinate  agent. 

It  thus  appears,  that  this  passage,  instead  of  prov- 
ing Christ  to  be  the  same  as  God,  or  a  person  equal 
to  God,  was  actually  intended  to  show,  that  there 
was  no  such  intermediate  being,  as  was  designated 
by  the  different  sects  of  that  period  under  the  name 
Logos.  The  work  of  crealion,  which  they  assigned 
to  this  imaginary  being,  had  no  other  origin  than  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  God.  When  this  position  was 
established,  the  errors  of  the  Platonists  and  Gnos- 
tics, in  regard  to  the  character  of  Christ,  would  fall  of 
course,  because  they  were  btiilt  on  the  supposition  o,f 
30 


the  personal  existence  of  the  Logos.  When  tlie  evan- 
gelist says,  near  the  close  of  his  gospel,  that  he  has 
written  to  prove,  <Hhat  Jesus  is  the  Christ,"  he  ob- 
viously alludes  to  the  sect  of  Cerinthians,  by  whom 
this  was  denied. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  also,  that  if  in  this  passage  lie 
intended  to  declare  Christ  to  be  God,  it  is  very 
strange  that  he  should  say  one  object  of  his  writing 
was  to  prove  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Moreover,  if 
by  the  Logos  here  we  are  to  understand  the  person  of 
Christ,  how  could  it  be  said  to  be  from  the  beginning 
with  God,  and  to  be  God,  unless  there  were  from  the 
beginning  two  distinct  Deities,  and  that  these  two 
were  one?  No  mode  of  explanation,  which  makes  the 
Logos  a  person  existing  from  eternity,  can  be  free 
from  this  inconsistency  and  contradiction.* 

Luke  i.  16,  I7.  *^And  many  of  the  children  of 
Israel  shall  he  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God;  and  he 
shall  go  before  him  in  the  spirit  and  power  of 
Elias.-' 

It  is  said,  that  by  "the  Lord  their  God"  in  this 
place  is  meant  Christ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  pas- 
sage itself,  nor  in  any  part  of  the  message  of  the  an- 
gel to  Zacharias,  from  which  such  an  inference  can 
with  any  propriety  be  made.      To  go  before  God 

*  For  a  lucid  and  comprehensive  view  of  this  subject,  see  pro- 
fessor Norton's  Statement  of  Reasons,  &c.  p.  55.  Kuinoel,  in  his 
Proleo-omena  to  the  gospel  of  St.  John,  brings  together  the  various 
opinions,  which  have  been  entertained  concerning  the  Logos,  and 
the  design  of  the  evangelist  in  writing  his  gospel.  Priestley's 
Hist,  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  i.  and  ii.  Book.  2,  chap.  i.  Lindsey's 
Sequel,  p.  129.    Cleric!  Adnotationes  in  Johan,  cap.  i. 


233 

means   to  walk  in  his  presence f  or  his  sight,  and 
is  a  common  phraseology  in  the  New  Testament. ^• 

John  XX.  28.  "And  Thomas  answered  and  said 
unto  him,  my  Lord,  and  my  God.''  There  have  been 
different  opinions  on  this  text.  Some  have  supposed 
tliat  Thomas  meant  to  address  Christ  as  the  Supreme 
God;  others,  that  his  language  was  only  an  exclama- 
tion expressing  his  surprise  on  finding  that  Christ 
had  in  reality  risen  from  the  dead,  which,  a  short 
time  before,  he  had  declared  he  could  not  believe.  It 
is  thought  by  others,  that  the  address  was  made  di- 
rectly to  Christ,  but  not  in  the  character  of  the  Su- 
preme Being.  In  the  midst  of  his  surprise  at  the  won- 
derful event,  which  had  happened,  and  of  the  reality 
of  which  he  was  convinced  by  the  sudden  appearance 
of  Christ,  Thomas  addressed  him  in  the  exclamation 
contained  in  the  text.  He  was  his  Lord  and  his  God, 
in  the  same  sense  as   the  Jewish  magistrates   were 

*  The  phrase  evuTrtov  Qeov  often  occurs,  and  it  almost  univer- 
sally means  in  the  presence  of  God,  or  in  the  sight  of  Qod.  "For 
he  shall  be  great  {ivuTtev  Qeov)  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord."  Luke 
i.  15.  The  most  prominent  signification  of  v^oe^x'^f^^'  is  to  ad- 
vance, to  proceed,  (vid.  Heder.  in  voc.)  and  it  is  used  in  this  sense^ 
Matth.  xxvi.  39.  Mark  xiv.  35.  Acts  xii.  10.  Wakefield  renders 
the  passage,  "And  he  will  lead  the  way  in  the  sight  of  God." 

It  was  not  the  office  of  John  to  turn  men  to  Christ,  but  to  God^ 
whose  counsels  and  laws  they  had  forsaken;  and  to  prepare  them 
for  receiving  the  religion,  which  he  was  about  to  communicate 
through  his  Son.  "They  greatly  err,"  says  Wolzogen,  "who  sup- 
pose John  was  to  turn  the  people  to  Christ,  and  hence  infer,  that 
he  IS  the  Supreme  God.  They  could  not  be  turned  to  Christ,  be- 
cause they  had  not  forsaken  or  receded  from  him;  but  it  was  im- 
portant that  they  should  be  turned  to  God,  that  they  might  be  the 
better  prepared  to  have  faith  in  Christ."  Vid.  Wolzog.  Commerit, 
in  Log.  Opera,  Tom.  i.  p.  5'5.5. 


224 

Lords  and  Gods  over  those,  whom  they  instructed 
and  governed;  and  in  the  same  sense  which  Peter 
would  convey,  when  he  said  to  the  Jews,  "God  hath 
made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both 
Lord  and  Christ.^ 

Slichtingius  has  well  observed,  that  the  great  sur- 
prise manifested  by  Thomas  on  this  occasion,  instead 
of  affording  any  proof  of  the  general  belief  of  the 
apostles  in  the  proper  deity  of  Christ,  is  a  strong  ar- 
gument to  the  contrary.  Had  Thomas  believed 
Christ  to  be  God,  it  could  give  him  no  surprise  to 
know,  that  he  had  risen  from  the  dead.  He  must 
have  supposed  that  all  things  were  possible  with 
him,  and  when  he  was  convinced  of  the  remarkable 
fact  of  his  resurrection,  he  could  feel  no  astonish- 
ment. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  Grotius,  bishop  Pearce, 
and  others,  that  this  is  the  only  instance  in  which 
Christ  is  addressed  by  any  ©f  his  disciples  under  the 

*  This  last  mode  of  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Slichtingius, 
Crellius,  Kuinoel,  and  Rosenniuller.  See  their  Commentaries  on 
this  text.  Dr.  Carpenter  gives  a  similar  explanation,  and  considers 
Tiiomas  as  expressing  his  conviction  of  the  divine  authority  of 
Jesus,  which  he  had  before  doubted.  Carpenter's  View,  &c.  p.. 
149. 

Dr.  Kenrick  thinks  the  words  of  Thomas  were  only  an  excla- 
mation, "the  effect  of  sudden  surprise  and  astonishment,  to  find 
the  person,  whom  he  felt  and  handled,  to  be  raised  from  the  dead." 
Exposition,  vol.  ii.  p.  610.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Wolzogen, 
Dr.  Lardner,  Dr.  Whitby,  Mr.  Lindsey,  and  also  of  archbishop 
Newcome,  if  we  may  judge  from  his  note  on  the  passage  in  his 
Translation  of  the  New  Testament. 

Bisliop  Pearce  paraphrases  it,  "I  own  thee  now  to  be  Jesus  the 
Christ,  and  as  such  my  Lord  and  my  God.'i    Comment,  in  loc. 


225 

title  of  God.  In  this  fact,  every  one  slioukl  see  a 
strong  presumptive  argument,  that  Thomas  in  this 
place  €li(l  not  intend  to  address  him  as  the  eternal 
God;  especially,  since  the  words  will  receive,  without 
force  to  the  language,  an  interpretation  perfectly 
consistent  with  every  other  part  of  the  scriptures. 
If  the  disciples  believed  Christ  to  he  God,  why  had 
they  never  called  him  so  before,  when  they  saw  his 
miracles  and  astonishing  works,  which  could  only  be 
done  by  a  divine  agency? 

Acts  XX.  28.  ^'Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  your- 
selves, and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of 
God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 

This  text  was  formerly  considered  very  strong  in 
favour  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  but  it  seems  now  to  be 
very  generally  given  up  by  all  learned  trinitarians. 
No  question  remains,  that  the  present  rendering, 
church  of  God,  is  incorrect.  Kuinoel  says,  ^Hhe  true 
reading,  beyond  all  doubt,  is  church  of  the  Lord,  and 
this  has  been  adopted  by  Grotius,  Wetsten,  Le  Clerc, 
Griesbach,  and  all  the  most  skilful  critics  of  the  pre- 
sent age.''"*  Some  manuscripts  read  Christ,  but 
there  is  much  the  highest  authority  for  Lord.  The 
idea  of  the  blood  of  God  is  so  shocking,  that  every 
one  must  feel  gratified,  that  the  received  translation 
of  this  text,  the  only  one  in  scripture  in  which  such 
an  idea  is  advanced,  should  be  found  to  be  so  en 
tirely  without  foundation. f 

*  Comment,  in  Act.  Apostol.  p.  67'9. 

t  After  tlie  most  laborions  researches,  Grieabacli  sajs,  the  read-- 
ing  of  ^iov  is  not  supported  by  a  single  ancient  or  valuable  manu- 


S26 

liom.  ix.  5.  "Whose  are  the  fatheix,  and  of  whom, 
as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all, 
God  blessed  for  ever." 

These  words  admit  of  different  interpretations 
by  varying  the  punctuation.  They  may  be  point- 
ed as  follows;  *'of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh, 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all.  God  be  blessed 
for  ever."  Christ  is  over  all  things  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Father,  as  it  is  expressed  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
27.  ^'He  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But 
when  he  saith,  all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is 
manifest  that  he  is  excepted,  which  did  put  all  things 
under  him."  This  text  is  a  decisive  proof,  that  what- 
ever dignity  Christ  possessed  by  the  appointment  of 

script;  and  concludes,  Qu?e.  omnia  cum  ita  sint,  non  possumus 
ca;teris  lectionibus  non  prpeferre  xv^iov.  See  the  note  to  this  text 
in  his  second  edition. — Also  Le  Clerc's  Ars  Grit.  vol.  ii.  p.  93,  e£ 
Adnot.  in  loc. — Vera  lectio  videtur  esse  tov  kv^iov.  Rosenmul* 
in  loc. — Morus,  after  a  comparison  of  various  authorities,  comes  to 
the  same  conclusion,  although  he  loses  no  opportunity  in  other 
places  to  support  the  deity  of  Christ.  Vid.  Mori  Versionem  et 
Explicationem  Act.  Apost.  p.  515. — Even  Dr.  Nares  admits  the 
same,  although  with  no  apparent  good  will.  Remarks  on  the  Ira- 
proved  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  second  edit.  p.  220. 

Bishop  Pearce  adopts  the  same  reading  in  his  commentary  on 
this  passage,  and  archbishop  Newcome  has  received  it  into  his 
text. 

It  is  remarkable  enough,  that  modern  trinitarians  have  defend- 
ed, as  pait  of  scripture,  a  form  of  language,  which  Athanasius 
himself  condemned  as  an  invention  of  the  Arians.  "Our  scrip- 
tures," says  he,  "no  where  mention  the  blood  of  God.  Such  dar- 
in"-  expressions  belong  only  to  Arians."  Ov^xy.ov  h  «/V«  ©£ef 
Kx6'  Tif^tti  TTAox^e^uKcta-tv  «<  y^a^xt,  A^eixvuv  tu,  Totxvra  roX~ 
,iij},M,«T(«.  Athanas.  cont.  Apollin.  apud  VVetsten.  in  loc.  Bel- 
sham's  Calm  Inquiry,  second  edit.  p.  141. 


337 

the  Father,  it  is  very  far  from  making  him  equal  to 
God. 

Others  prefer  a  different  punctuation,  and  trans- 
late the  passage  as  follows;  "He,  who  is  over  all, 
God,  be  blessed  for  ever,"  or  "God,  who  is  over  all, 
be  blessed  for  ever.''  This  is  the  translation  of  Mr. 
Locke.*  Either  of  these  renderings  is  admissible, 
and  when  it  is  understood,  that  the  original  was  writ- 
ten without  any  punctuation,  it  will  be  seen,  that  no 
improper  liberty  is  taken  in  making  this  conform  to 
what  is  conceived  to  be  the  general  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage. This  is  the  only  rule,  in  fact,  which  can  be 
followed. 

If  Christ  were  intended  to  be  called  God  in  this 
place,  there  is  one  reason  in  the  passage  itself,  why 
the  title  cannot  denote  tlie  Supreme  God.  He  is  si)0- 
ken  of  as  having  descended  from  the  Jews  according 
to  the  flesh,  and  in  this  character,  even  according  to 
the  trinitarian  hypothesis,  he  certainly  could  not  be 
considered  God  the  Father. 

The  apostle  is  here  enumerating  the  privileges  oi 
the  Jews,  one  of  which  was,  that  they  were  descend- 
ed from  the  patriarchs,  and  another,  that  the  Messiah 
Lad  arisen  in  their  nation.  For  these  privileges, 
by  which,  through  divine  favour,  they  had  been  so 
remarkably  distinguished,  God,  the  author  of  all,  was 
to  be  blessed  for  ever.f 

*  See  Locke's  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  p.  ST-l,  Wetsten  inclines  to  the  same  intL-rpretatiijn.  V'id. 
in  loc. 

t  Dr.  Taylor  supposes  the  whole  to  relate  to  tlie  privileges  of  the 
Jews,  and  as  it  was  one  of  tlieir  greatest  privileges,  tiiat  (iud  was 


228 

1  Tim.  iii.  16.  ^^Antl  without  controversy  great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness,  God  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached 
unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received 
up  into  glory." 

Instead  of  God  in  this  text,  a  great  number  of  manu- 
scripts of  the  highest  authority  read  he  who,  and  se- 
veral others  of  less  value  read  which.  According  to 
this  last  reading  the  sense  will  be,  great  is  the  mys- 
tery of  godliness,  which  was  manifest  in  the  flesh. 
This  is  preferred  by  many  trinitariau  writers,  as  well 
as  others. 

But  since  the  learned  and  laborious  researches  of 
Griesbach,  the  second  reading  has  been  the  most  ge- 
nerally adopted  by  critics.  After  patiently  examin- 
ing and  comparing  all  the  manuscripts  and  authorities, 
which  are  considered  of  any  value,  he  says,  that  those 
laws  of  criticism,  which  have  been  established  by  the 
common  consent  of  the  most  learned  critics,  require 
the  reading  in  this  place  to  be  who,  or  he  who.*  In 
conformity  with  this  result  he  has  inserted  it  into  his 
text;  and  although  archbishop  Newcome  does  not  in- 

peculiarly  their  God,  he  prefers  the  following  translation;  "IFhose 
are  the  fathers,  and  of  ivliom  as  concerning  the  flesh  is  Christ, 
whose  is  the  God  over  all  blessed  for  ever."  Note  in  loc.  The 
connexion  and  sense  here  are  extremely  natural,  and  although 
this  translation  is  founded  on  the  conjectural  emendation  of 
Slichtinj!;ius,  (wv  o  for  5  wv)  it  is  by  no  means  impossible,  that  it 
may  be  the  true  one.  Vid.  Slicht.  Comment,  in  loc.  Mr.  Jonea 
agrees  with  Dr.  Taylor.  See  Analysis  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ro- 
mans, p.  114. 

*  Postulabant  enim  hoc  leges  criticse— quas  doctissimi  critic^ 
suo  assensii  coraprobarunt.  Vid.  Not.  in  loc,  edit.secund. 


^29 

troduce  it  into  his  translation,  he  has  placed  it  in  the 
margin.* 

Thus  corrected,  the  passage  may  he  explained  as 
follows;  Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness.  He,  who 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh;  that  is,  who  dwelt  among 
men,  humbled  himself,  and  submitted  to  the  suffer- 
ings incident  to  human  life; — tvas  justified  by  the  spi- 
rit;-[  was  vindicated  in  declaring  himself  to  be  the 
Messiah  sent  from  God,  by  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  he  possessed  in  so  high  a  degree,  and 
which  were  conferred  so  abundantly  on  many  of  his 
followers; — was   seen   of  angels,   or    messengers;^ 

*  "Ml  the  old  versions,"  says  Dr.  Clarke,  (Doct  of  Trin.  No.  88, 
89,)  "have  who  or  which.  And  all  the  ancient  fathers,  though  the 
copies  of  many  of  them  have  it  now  in  the  text  itself  Qf05,  God; 
yet  from  the  tenor  of  their  commenls  upon  it,  and  from  their 
never  citing  it  in  the  Arian  controversy,  it  appears  that  they  al- 
ways read  it  os,  who,  or  o,  which"  See  Improv.  Vers,  fourth  edi^ 
tion,  note. 

t  Rosenmuller  has  remarked^  that  spirit  here  may  signify  the 
christian  doctrine,  as  in  other  places.    In  this  case  it  would  mean, . 
that  the  nature  of  this  doctrine,  and  its  success  among  men,  jus- 
tify Christ  in  professing  himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God..Rosenmul. 
in  loc.  et  Schleusn.  in  verb,  -rtivy,.  17. 

The  proper  rendering  is  by,  and  not  in  the  spirit,  as  the  context 
plainly  indicates.  By  a  Hebraism,  £»  is  put  for  S'lx  per.  Vor- 
stius  de  Hebrais.  cap.  xiv.  §  4. 

J  The  same  word,  which  is  here  rendered  angels,  is  often  transr 
lated  messengers,  which  is  evidently  its  meaning  in  this  place. 
John  the  Baptist  is  called  an  angel  or  messenger.  Luke  vii.  27. 
"Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  (uyysfiov  iu,ov,  my  angel,)  before 
thy  face."  ix.  52.  Jesus  "sent  messengers  (xyyfXov?,  angels)  be- 
fore his  face;  and  they  went  and  entered  into  a  city  of  Samaria  to 
make  ready  for  him."  On  this  part  of  the  text,  Macknight  re- 
marks as  follows,— "Was  seen  of  angels,  that  is,  of  the  apostles, 
31 


330 

of  those  persons,  wlio  were  to  be  the  messens;ers  of 
his  gospel,  and  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  his  re- 
surrection;— was  preached  to  the  Gentiles;  his  reli- 
gion was  promulgated  among  all  nations,  Gentiles  as 
well  as  Jeus; — was^elieved  on  in  the  world;  his  doc- 
trine was  embraced,  and  he  was  believed  to  be  the 
Messiah; — was  received  wp  in  glory;  his  ascensioa 
was  marked  with  circumstances  of  glory.* 

The  sense  of  the  text  will  be  the  same,  if  the  pre- 
sent reading  be  retained,  provided  the  word  God  be 
considered  a  title  of  Chiist  in  a  sense,  in  which  we 
have  already  seen  it  is  frequently  used.  But  if  you 
suppose  this  title  to  denote  the  Supreme  Being,  it  will 
be  impossible  to  give  any  consistent  or  rational  ex- 
planation of  the  passage.  How  can  the  eternal  God, 
who  is  every  where  present,  be  said  to  reside  in  a  hu- 
man body?  The  being,  who  is  bere  mentioned,  had 
been  raised  from  the  dead;  but  bow  can  such  lan- 
guage be  applied  to  the  living  God,  "who  only  hath 
immortality?"  How  could  the  Almighty  Father,  "who 
dwelleth  in  light  inaccessible,"  be  ^^received  up  in 
glory?"  Such  are  the  inconsistences  of  this  text,  if 
you  attempt  to  interpret  it  on  the  supposition,  that  the 
being  of  whom  it  speaks  is  the  Supreme  God.  And 
since  those  authorities,  by  which  we  determine  the 
true  reading  of  any  part  of  scripture,  do  not  warrant 

and  of  the  other  witnesses,  who  were  appointed  to  publish  and 
testify  his  resurrection  to  the  world  "  Aliis  xyycMi  hoc  loco  sunt 
apostoli;  illis  enim  Christus  in  vitam  redux  ssepius  apparuit,  ut 
essent  testes  resurrectionis.  Rosennml. 

*  The  original  is  f»  ^o|>},  in,  or  with  glory.  Receptus  est  in 
gloria,  id  est  cum  gloria,  seu  gloriose,  per  Hebraismum  in  pro 
cum  posito.    Crellii  Commen^.  Tom.  ii.  p.  19. 


231 

such  a  supposition,  and  the  sense  of  the  text  is  deci- 
dedly against  it,  why  should  it  be  admitted? 

Heb.  i.  8.  *'But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne 
O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 

This  is  a  quotation  from  the  Psalms,  (Ps.  xlv.  6.) 
in  which  place  it  is  supposed  by  many  to  have  been 
applied  by  the  Psalmist  to  Solomon.  Such  was  the 
opinion  of  archbishop  Newcome.  But  of  whatever 
person  it  may  have  been  spoken  in  the  Psalms,  it  is 
evidently  quoted  here  in  reference  to  Christ,  and  we 
are  told  by  Wetsten,  that  it  was  generally  under- 
stood by  the  Jews  to  relate  to  the  Messiah.  Yet  the 
Jews  never  expected  their  Messiah  to  be  the  Su- 
preme God;  and  it  is  evident,  that  the  apostle  does 
not  intend  to  signify,  by  tliis  quotation,  the  nature  of 
Christ,  but  the  dignity  of  his  orfflce.  For  in  the  very 
next  verse  he  speaks  of  God,  as  a  distinct  being  from 
Christ.  "Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated 
iniquity;  therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed 
thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."  If 
we  apply  the  first  part  of  the  quotation  to  Christ,  we 
must  apply  this  likewise.  But  here  he  is  said  to 
have  been  anointed  by  his  God;  and  he  could  not 
himself  be  the  same  God  by  whom  he  was  anointed. 
If  he  is  intended,  therefore,  in  this  text  to  be  called 
God,  it  must  be  in  an  inferior  sense;  uuless  there  are 
two  Gods,  and  these  two  are  one. 

It  has  been  further  observed  by  Grotius,  Erasmus, 
Clarke,  and  others,  that  both  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
of  this  passage  will  admit  a  different  *i'anslation. 
The  grammatical  construction  of  both  these" languages 
would  seem  to  require  it  to  be  rendered  as  folloVvs; 
"But  concerning  the  Son  he  saith,  God  is  thy  thronp 


Jor  ever  and  ever;"  that  is,  God  is  the  support  of  thy 
kingdom.  This  explanation,  perhaps,  is  preferable 
to  the  other,  but  it  cannot  with  any  consistency  be 
argued  from  either  of  them,  that  Christ  is  the  eternal 
God.* 

S  Peter,  i.  1.  "Through  the  righteousness  of  God, 
and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.'^ 

You  do  not  quote  this  text  from  the  Bible,  but  from 
Jones  on  the  trinity,  and  according  to  the  following 
arrangement,  namely,  ^'Through  the  righteousness  of 
our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  You  have  not 
told  your  readers,  why  you  choose  to  deviate  thus 
from  the  English  translation.  Although  in  the  ori- 
ginal there  is  an  ambiguity  in  a  few  texts  similar  to 
this,  and  some  room  for  doubt  respecting  the  position 
and  force  of  the  Greek  article;  yet  in  the  present  in- 
stance there  seems  to  be  no  possibility  of  being  misled. 
The  words  which  follow  are  so  explicit,  as  not  to  ad- 
mit of  any  uncertainty  in  the  interpretation.  *<Grace 
and  peace  be  multiplied  unto  you,  through  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  of  Jesus  our  Lord."  v.  3.  Are  not 
God  and  the  Saviour  spoken  of  here  as  two  distinct 
beings?  And  why  should  we  desire  to  force  the 
words  of  the  first  verse  into  a  meaning,  which  is  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  plain  sense  of  the  se- 
cond? 

It  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  enter  into  the  tangled 
controversy  about  the  Greek  article.    If  the  doctrine 

*  "But  concerning  the  Son,"  (v^q?  tov  tiov,)  Lindsey's  Seq.  p. 
207.  "Buto/  the  Son."  Wakefield.  See  also  Viger  De  Grsec.  Diet. 
Idiotismis,  c.  ix.  §  8,  De  Prsep.  ?rf  05. 

O  fl«ovo5  rov  0  ©£05  £/?  ?»"  eci0v»  rev  ettavoi.  Septuag. 


23S 

of  the  trinity,  or  of  the  unity,  he  suspended  by  so 
slender  a  thread  as  this,  we  may  as  well  let  it  break 
at  once,  as  attempt  to  strengthen  it.  To  write  books 
about  the  construction  of  one  or  two  Greek  letters,  in 
half  a  dozen  texts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to 
marshal  out  arguments  from  this  construction  in  sup- 
port of  the  proper  deity  of  Christ,  must  show  a  la- 
mentable want  of  evidence  from  more  certain  and 
more  valuable  sources.  Such  a  course  could  never 
have  been  taken,  except  as  a  last  resort.  When  we 
recollect,  especially,  how  innumerable  have  been  the 
blunders  and  omissions  of  transcribers,  both  accidental 
and  designed,  and  how  likely  these  would  be  to  occur 
in  the  use  of  the  article,  we  cannot  but  wonder,  that 
men  should  waste  their  time,  and  torture  their  inven- 
tion, in  building  up  arguments  of  materials  so  sha- 
dowy and  fragile.  The  inquiry,  as  a  branch  of  cri- 
ticism, is  not  without  value.  Its  results  may  serve  to 
illustrate  points  of  minor  consideration,  and  aid  in 
settling  correct  principles  of  criticism;  but  when  an 
important  doctrine  of  christian  faith  is  propped  up  by 
them,  it  may  indeed  be  said  to  have  a  feeble  sup- 
port. 

It  is  furthermore  undeniable,  that  every  passage,  in 
which  the  construction  of  the  article  is  supposed  to 
be  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  trinity,  is  in  the  ori- 
ginal ambiguous.  Without  deviating  from  grammati- 
cal strictness,  it  will  admit  of  a  different  interpreta- 
tion. Take  for  example  Tit.  ii.  13.  "The  glorious 
appearing  of  the  great  God.  and  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  It  stands  thus  in  our  common  version,  but 
it  is  not  denied,  that  the  grammatical  construction  will 
allow  it  to  be  rendered  in  the  following  manner;  "the 


S34 

glorious  appearing  of  our  great  God,  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ."  In  several  texts  there  is  a  similar 
ambiguity.  But  after  all,  there  is  no  danger  of  mis- 
taking the  sense.  It  may  justly  be  doubted,  whether 
in  a  single  passage  of  this  description,  grammatically 
rendered,  any  person,  who  had  not  been  biassed  by 
previous  impressions,  could  be  led  for  a  moment  to 
suspect  from  them,  that  Jesus  and  God  are  one  and 
the  same  being.  It  would  never  occur  to  him,  that 
the  two  names  were  not  intended  to  represent  two 
beings.  Every  just  rule  of  interpretation  would  re- 
quire  us  to  explain  such  ambiguous  passages,  accord- 
ing to  the  plain  sense  of  other  parts  of  scripture;  and 
since  we  are  told  in  terms,  which  do  not  admit  of  but 
one  meaning,  that  there  is  one  Lord,  and  one  God 
and  Father  of  all,  and  that  this  God  is  the  God  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  do  great  violence  to  the 
scriptures  when  we  make  ambiguous  phrases  speak  a 
contrary  language,  and  artetnpt  to  show,  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  himself  the  same  being,  whom  he 
expressly  calls  his  God.* 

1  John  V.  20.  "And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God 
is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we 
may  know  him,  that  is  true;  and  we  are  in  him,  that 
is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
true  God,  and  eternal  life." 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  last  clause  of  this  text 
refers  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  he  is  here  called  the 

*  For  an  able  reply  to  Mr.  Granville  Sharp's  Remarks  on  the 
Greek  Article,  see  the  Rev.  Calvin  Winstanley's  Vindication  of 
certain  Passages  in  the  common  English  Version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament; first  American  edition,  printed  at  Cambridge,  1819,  with 
an  Appendix  containing  Remarks  on  Dr.  Middleton's  Treatise. 


S35 

true  God.  But  such  a  conclusion  must  be  drawn 
from  an  extremely  superficial  view  of  the  text  itself. 
Christ  is  here  characterized  as  the  son  of  the  true 
God,  and  until  it  can  be  made  out,  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  the  same  individual  being,  no  words 
can  more  clearly  express  a  distinction  between  them 
than  these.  Compare  this  text  with  another,  in  which 
is  contained  a  similar  construction.  *^For  many  de- 
ceivers are  entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not 
that  Jesus  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver 
and  an  antichrist."  2.  John,  ver.  J.  The  same  rule 
of  interpretation,  which,  in  the  former  text,  will 
make  Jesus  to  be  the  true  God,  will  here  make  him 
to  be  "a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist."  But  if  you 
allow  the  last  clause  in  each  to  refer  to  the  remote, 
and  not  the  immediate  antecednnt,  the  meaning  will 
be  obvious.  The  true  God  is  he  "that  is  true,"  that 
is,  God  the  Father,  and  not  **his  Son  Jesus  Christ;" 
in  the  same  way  as  the  deceiver  is  he,  who  does  <<not 
confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh."  In- 
stead  of  containing  any  thing  favourable  to  the  opin- 
ion, that  Christ  is  the  Supreme  God,  this  text  is  ac- 
tually an  argument  to  the  contrary,  as  it  speaks  of 
them  as  two  distinct  beings,  calling  one  *Hhe  true 
God,"  and  the  other  "the  Son  of  God."* 

*  In  the  criticism  of  Slichtingius  on  this  text,  he  says,  "It  is 
wonderful,  that  christians  should  acknowledge  the  true  God, 
mentioned  in  this  place,  to  be  God  the  Father,  and  at  the  same 
time  be  so  inconsistent  as  to  insist,  that  the  pronoun  this  refers  to 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  true  God.  More  especially,  since  we 
know,  that  John  has  again  and  again  distinguished  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  true  God,  as  emphatically  as  he  could  distinguish  a  son 
from  his  father.   These  christians  say,  that  this  true  God  is  at  the 


S36 

1  have  thus  considered  all  the  texts,  in  which  it  is 
generally  supposed  Christ  is  called  God.  I  have  said 
nothing  of  Matt.  i.  ^S,  because  the  name  Emanuel 
in  this  text  is  now  usually  allowed  to  be  nothing 
more,  than  a  prophetic  title,  expressive  of  the  char- 
acter, and  not  of  the  nature  of  Christ.  This  name 
was  given  by  the  prophet  in  conformity  with  the  He- 
brew custom  of  giving  names.  Adonijah  means,  my 
Lord  is  Jehovah;  Elihu^  my  God  himself;  Elijah, 
G«.d  the  Lord.  There  is  no  more  reason  for  infer- 
ring, that  Christ  was  the  eternal  God,  because  Eman- 
uel, the  name  by  which  the  prophet  said  he  should 
be  called,  means  God  with  Us,  than  there  is  for  be- 
lieving Elijah  to  have  been  the  eternal  God,  because 
his  name  means  God  the  Lord.  This  title  was  ex- 
pressive of  the  character  of  Christ,  as  in  him  God  was 
manifest  on  earth  in  a  remarkable  manner  by  his  wis- 
dom and  power. 

same  time  both  Father  and  Son.  But  since  God  can  be  only  one^ 
it  follows,  if  he  is  both  Father  and  Son,  that  he  is  Father  of  him- 
self, and  Son  of  himself.  They  deny  this  consequence,  and  say, 
that  although  the  true  God  can  be  only  one,  yet  he  consists  of  a 
plurality  of  persons,  one  of  which  is  the  Father,  and  the  other  the 
Son.  They,  who  say  these  things,  manifestly  contradict  them- 
selves, and  it  would  be  in  vain  to  dispute  with  persons,  who  have 
so  little  regard  for  the  first  principles  of  the  understanding.  I 
would  sooner  pray  God  to  give  them  a  sound  mind,  than  attempt  to 
dispute  with  them."    Slichting.  Comment.  Tom.  ii.  p.  417. 

A  part  of  the  text  might  be  more  correctly  rendered  in  the  fol- 
lowing words,  "We  are  in  him,  that  is  tr\ie,through  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ."  Particula  in  ponitur  pro  per.  Slicht. — Ev  pro  ^/«. 
Viger.  De  Idiotismis,  p.  610.  For  a  similar  use  of  this  preposition, 
see  Rom.  x.  8,  9.  Eph.  iii.  21.  Coll.  i.  16. 

For  other  examples  in  which  the  relative  is  not  referred  to  the 
nearest  antecedent,  see  Act  vii.  19.  x,  6.  2  Thesg.  ii.  8,  9. 


237 

1  have  uot  mentioned  1  Jolm  iii.  16,  because  the 
Words,  of  God,  are  added  by  the  translators.  I  would 
only  remark  on  tliis  text,  that  it  shows  with  what 
prepossessions  king  James's  translators  engaged  in 
their  important  undertaking,  and  tlie  necessity  of  re- 
ceiving their  translation  with  great  caution  in  any  case 
of  doubt  or  difficulty.  They  have  liere  added  a  word, 
which  gives  a  totally  different  meaning  to  the  text, 
and  have  acknowledged,  by  putting  it  in  italics,  that 
it  is  not  authorized  by  the  original.  If  they  were  so 
much  warped  by  system  and  previous  opinions,  as  to 
deviate  so  glaringly  from  the  original  in  one  instance, 
we  cannot  be  surprised  to  find  a  similar  tendency  in 
many  others,* 

In  examining  these  texts  we  find  there  is  not  one, 
in  which  it  is  absolutely  certain,  that  the  title  God  is 
applied  to  Christ,  And  it  may  be  said,  without  fear 
of  contradiction,  that  in  whatever  sense  this  title  is 
used,  it  is  never  so  connected  with  Christ,  as  to  w  ar- 
rant the  inference,  by  any  just  principles  of  interpre- 
tation, that  he  is  the  Supreme  God.  And  it  is  wor« 
thy  of  remark,  that  several  of  the  most  learned  and  emie 
nent  trinitarians  have  given  such  explanations  to  the 
texts  here  considered,  as  are  conformable  to  the  uni- 
tarian interpretation. 

Is  it  not  a  little  singular,  that  almost  every  text,  ia 
which  it  is  supposed  Christ  is  directly  called  Grodj 
should  be  of  so  doubtful  a  character?  Does  it  uot  give 

*  The  word  ©f  •k,  of  God,  is  not  admitted  into  the  t&xX  either 
by  Mill,  Wetsten,  Bengel,  or  Griesbach.    It  is  found  in  one 
manuscript  only,  in  the  Complut.  edit,  and  Vulgate.    Vid.  Wet-   . 
3teu  and  Griesbach, 


S88 

room  for  suspicion,  that  these  texts,  in  their  present 
form,  are  by  no  means  the  purest  in  the  scriptures? 
How  should  it  happen,  that  those  passages,  which 
are  thought  to  be  the  strongest  in  favour  of  the  trini- 
ty, have  actually  the  least  certainty  in  regard  to  their 
original  construction,  and  are  the  least  definite  in  their 
meaning  of  any  others  in  the  whole  Bible?  There  is 
one  mode,  and  only  one,  of  explaining  this  fact.  The 
texts  themselves  have  been  mutilated  and  deformed 
by  bqj^g  pressed,  from  time  to  time,  into  a  service  for 
which  they  were  not  originally  qualified.  But  there 
is  enough  of  their  primitive  simplicity  still  left,  to 
enable  us  to  detect  their  factitious  and  unnatural 
parts,  and  to  discover  a  meaning  in  them  honourable 
to  God,  and  to  the  Saviour,  and  conformable  to  the 
plain  sense  of  scripture. 

11.  I  am  next  to  consider  some  of  the  leading  pas- 
sages, in  which  such  properties  or  powers  are  ascrib- 
ed to  Christ,  as  it  is  thought  could  be  ascribed  only  to 
God,  or  to  a  being  equal  to  God;  and  also  some  others, 
which  are  believed  to  contain  general  proofs  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity. 
John  X.  30.  "1  and  my  Father  are  one." 
In  another  place  our  Lord  explains  in  what  sense 
he  is  to  be  understood,  as  being  one  with  tlie  Father. 
In  a  prayer  for  his  disciples,  he  says,  "Holy  Father, 
keep,  through  thine  own  name,  those  whom  thou  hast 
given  me,  that  they  may  he  one,  as  we  are.  Neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also,  which  shall 
believe  on  me  through  their  word;  that  they  all  may 
BK  ONE,  as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee,  that 
they  also  may  be  one  in  us;  that  the  world  may  be- 
lieve that  thou  hast  sent  me.     And  the  glory,  which 


239 

thou  gavest  me,  1  have  given  them,  that  they  may  be 
ONE,  even  as  we  are  one,"  John  xvii.  11,  20.  After 
reading  these  texts,  it  is  not  possible  to  mistake  his 
meaning  when  he  said,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one." 
They  were  one,  as  he  and  his  disciples  were  one,  and 
as  all  christians  are  one.  They  were  united  in  counsel, 
and  purpose,  and  acted  in  concert.  Christ  did  '*what 
he  saw  the  Father  do."  If  this  text  prove  Christ  to 
be  God,  the  others  prove  the  same  of  his  disciples.* 

Philip,  ii.  6.  "Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God." 

Before  we  seek  for  an  explanation  of  this  text,  it  is 
necessary  to  know  the  object  of  the  apostle,  in  writ- 
ing the  passage  from  which  it  is  taken.  If  we  ex- 
amine the  preceding  and  following  verses,  we  shall 
learn,  that  he  is  enjoining  on  the  Philippians  the  vir- 
tue of  humility f  and  to  make  his  injunctions  the  more 
effectual,  he  reminds  them  of  the  example  of  Christ. 
It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  text  must  have  a 
sense,  which  Is  in  conformity  with  this  object,  and 
which  is  indicative  of  the  humility,  and  not  of  the 
exaltation  of  Christ. 

This  text  most  trinitarians  think  a  decided  proof  of 
the  deity  of  Christ.  But  if  this  opinion  were  correct, 
what  force  or  meaning  would  there  be  in  the  apostle's 
language?  Christ  is  mentioned  here  as  an  example  of 

*  It  has  been  observed,  that  the  original  is  not  1/5,  one  person, 
but  h,  one  thing.  Hence  Calvin  says,  "The  ancients  abused  this 
text  in  attempting  to  prove  from  it,  that  Christ  is  of  the  same  es- 
sence (o/^ooviiov)  with  the  Father,  for  Christ  is  not  speaking  of  a 
unity  of  substance,  but  of  a  union,  by  virtue  of  which,  whatsoever 
he  did  would  be  confirmed  by  the  Father."  Abusi  sunt  hoc  loco 
veteres,  &c.  Vid.  Wolzogen.  Oper.  Tom.  i.  p.  923. 


^40 

humility,  and  apparently  for  no  other  purpose.  But 
was  it  any  evidence  of  humility  in  him  to  'Hhink  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  G^od?"  The  entire  inconsis- 
tency of  these  words  with  the  context,  should  point 
out  at  once  the  necessity  of  some  better  translation. 
As  they  stand,  they  destroy  the  propriety  of  the  apos- 
tle's reference  to  the  example  of  Christ,  and  render 
the  whole  passage  inapplicable  to  the  purpose  for 
wliich  it  was  evidently  intended. 

What  are  we  to  understand,  in  the  first  place,  by 
the  form  of  God?  Most  trinitarians  suppose  it  to  be 
the  divine  nature,  and  as  it  is  applied  to  Christ,  they 
consider  it  a  declaration,  that  he  is  possessed  of  this 
nature,  and  is  essentially  God.  But  it  is  well  known> 
that  the  word  which  is  translated  form,  very  seldom 
means,  in  the  original,  the  nature  or  essence  of  a  thing, 
but  only  its  external  appearance,  figure,  or  properties. 
Besides,  if  being  in  the  form  of  God  is  a  proof  that 
Christ  was  actually  God,  then  his  being  in  the  form 
of  a  servant,  or  slave,  is  a  proof,  that  he  was  actual- 
ly a  servant,  or  slave,  which  we  know  is  not  true. 
Any  evidence  contained  in  the  phrase, /or?w  of  God,  is 
as  strong  in  favour  of  one  of  these  positions,  as  the 
other.* 

Hence  this  must  apply  not  to  the  nature,  but  to  the 
condition  and  qualifications  of  Christ.  The  form  of 
God,  in  which  he  appeared,  was  the  manifestation  of 

*  Hammond  says  f^o^(p»  is  used  by  good  authors  pro  interna 
ipsa  reriim  essentia  vel  format  but  Le  Clerc  prefers  the  interpre- 
tation of  Grotius,  and  quotes  Hesychius,  Suidas,  Phavorinus  and 
others  to  prove,  that  it  relates  to  the  external  figure  or  appear- 
ance, and  is  syr^onymous  with  eiicav,  ei^o<;,  -x^oio^ts.  Ham- 
mond. Adnot. — }Ao^<p>i  denofat  aliquid  quod  in  occulos  incurqt, 
adoque  de  Deo  propiie  dici  non  potest.  Wetsten. 


241 

divine  power  and  wisdom  in  the  miracles  he  wrought, 
the  instructions  he  communicated,  and  in  all  the  evi- 
dences he  gave  of  the  divinity  of  his  mission. 

Thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  ivith  God.  It  is 
agreed  by  almost  all  critics,  trinitarian  as  well  as 
unitarian,  that  the  words,  equal  ivith  God,  may  be  trans- 
lated with  the  strictest  conformity  to  grammatical  con- 
struction, as,  or  like  God.  The  phrase  is  thus  trans- 
lated by  archbishop  Newcome,  and  Dr.  Macknight. 
Allowing  the  common  version  to  be  admissible,  this  is 
thought  preferable;  because,  if  Christ  be  equal  with 
God,  there  must  be  two  Gods  equal  in  power  and  ma- 
jesty, which  is,  contrary  to  scripture  and  reason.* 

Thought  it  not  robbery;  that  is,  he  did  not  consider 
this  resemblance  to  God  as  jilunder,  or  a  thing  which 
he  had  taken  by  force.  He  looked  upon  it  as  a  free 
gift,  conferred  by  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  In  this 
consisted  his  humility.  He  did  not  exalt  himself,  or 
boast  of  those  possessions  and  high  endowments,  which 
raised  him  to  a  likeness  with  God,  as  if  he  had  ob- 
tained them  by  his  own  exertions,  but  was  humble 
in  his  station,  unassuming  in  his  deportment,  and 
submitted  patiently  to  many  indignities,  without  any 
ostentatious  display  of  those  powers,  by  which  he 
might  have  secured  the  admiration,  the  respect  and 
obedience  of  the  world. f 

*  Wetsten  renders  ura  Qeu^ut  Deus,  like.  God;  and  in  this  he 
is  followed  by, Macknight,  who  observes,  that  Whitby  "has  prov- 
ed in  the  clearest  manner,  that  la-a  is  used  adverbially  by  the  lxx, 
to  express  likeness,  but  not  equality."  See  Macknight  on  this 
place.   Instar  Dei.  Rosenmul.  et  Sliciit. 

f  There  is  some  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  precise  meaning 
of  »§T»y/4,oi,  because  it  is  not  used  in  any  other  place  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  probably  is  not  to  bo  found  in  more  t!ian  one  or 


S4S 

With  this  meaning,  which  is  strictly  conformable 
to  the  original,  the  text  fills  up  the  place  in  which  it 
stands,  and  preserves  harmony  in  the  whole  passage. 

CoUos.  ii.  9.  "For  in  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily." 

The  word  Godhead  means  the  same  as  Deity,  or 
God.  What  is  meant  by  the  fulness  of  God  we  can 
ascertain,  by  comparing  this  passage  with  others.  In 
the  preceding  chapter  the  apostle  says,  "For  it  pleas- 
ed the  Father,  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell." 
This  fulness,  then,  was  something,  which  he  had  re- 
ceived from  the  Father,  and  consequently  was  not  any- 

two  instances  anywhere  else.  It  may  mean  the  act  of  seizing 
upon  any  thing  for  plunder,  or  booty;  or  it  may  mean  the  thing 
seized,  the  plunder,  or  booty  itself.  That  is,  it  may  be  used  in 
an  active  or  passive  sense.  The  latter  is  generally  thought  pre- 
ferable. It  may  signify,  vel  rem  raptam,  vel  rem  avide  diripien- 
dam.  et  vindicandam.  Schleusn.in  voc. — Wetsten  takes  it  in  this 
sense,  and  gives  as  one  reason,  Christus  nunquam  harpagare  cu- 
ravit,  nunquam  aliquid  ab  aliquo  violenter  rapuit.  See  also 
"Wakefield's  Silva  Critica,  Sect,  cxlii.  For  a  more  full  explana- 
tion of  this  text,  see  Belsham's  Calm  Inquiry,  second  edit.  p.  82. 
Cappe's  Critical  Remarks,  vol.  i.  p.  228.^ 

Professor  Stuart  translates  this  text  as  follovi^s;  "Who  being  in 
the  condition  of  God,  did  not  regard  his  equality  with  God  as  an 
object  of  solicitous  desire."  He  gives  as  a  reason  why  he  ren- 
ders fi.o^(pD,  condition,  that  this  word  is  sometimes  used  by  meto- 
nymy, according  to  Schleusner,  for  (pvus,  or  cva-ix,  nature,  or  es* 
sence.  But  to  be  in  the  nature  of  God,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  be 
God  himself.  That  this  cannot  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the 
text,  is  evident,  because  it  is  immediately  after  said,  "he  made 
himself  of  no  reputation,"  literally,  "emptied  himself,"  Uvrev 
sxeiMTt,  or  divested  himself  of  whatever  it  was,  that  made  him  in 
the  form  of  God,  which  he  could  not  do,  if  he  were  God,  or  in  the 
nature  of  God.  The  idea  advanced  by  professor  Stuart,  Chat  God 
might  so  "veil  the  brightness  of  his  glories,"  or  so  yield  up  a  part 
of  his  perfections,  as  to  be  said  to  "empty  himself"  of  them,  and 


S43 

thing,  which  he  possessed  as  an  independent  and  self- 
exislent  being.  la  writing  to  the  Ephesians  the  apos- 
tle expressed  a  desire,  "that  they  might  be  filled  with 
all  the  fulness  of  God,^^  Eph.  iii.  19.  If  we  consider 
it  an  evidence,  that  Christ  was  God,  because  the  ful- 
ness of  God  dwelt  in  him,  why  should  not  the  same 
inference  be  drawn  in  regard  to  the  Ephesians? 

The  fulness  of  God  means  the  abundance  of  the  di- 
vine wisdom,  gifts,  and  blessings,  conferred  by  him. 
The  apostle  prayed,  that  these  might  be  multiplied  to 
the  Ephesians.  In  Christ  they  dwelt  bodily ,  that  is, 
really,  tvulyy  substantially,  inasmuch  as  he  was  en- 
dowed with  them  in  a  most  eminent  degree.^ 

still  retain  his  omnipotence,  omnipresence,  and  omniscience  un- 
impaired, is  one,  which  few  persons,  probably,  will  find  sufficiently 
intelligible  to  be  understood.  Nor  does  he  inform  us  why  he 
chooses,  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  the  ablest  critics,  to  render 
iTcc  ©£«,  by  the  phrase,  equality  tvith  God;  nor  has  he  attempted 
to  explain  how  one  being  could  be  said  to  have  equality  with  ano- 
ther, if  one  were  in  the  same  condition,  or  nature  as  the  otiier;  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  if  both  beings  constituted  the  same  being. 
But  there  is  something  further,  connected  with  professor  Stuart's 
explanation  of  this  text,  which  will  probably  appear  not  a  little 
strange  to  most  unitarians.  He  speaks  of  a  version  as  being  com- 
mon among  them,  which  he  cites  in  the  following  words,  namely, 
"He  did  not  think  of  the  robbery  of  being  equal  with  God."  Let- 
ters, p.  95.  Where  he  found  this  translation  is  not  easy  to  say, 
but  it  is  certain,  if  he  had  taken  pains  to  consult  many  unitarian 
expositors,  he  would  never  have  fallen  into  so  great  a  mistake,  as 
to  think  it  common  among  them.  After  a  tolerable  acquaintance 
with  most  of  the  unitarian  critical  expositors,  I  have  never  seen 
this  translation  in  any  other  place,  than  professor  Stuart's  Letters. 
There  are  very  few  unitarians,  it  is  presumed,  who  will  not  agree  in 
the  results  of  his  laboured  criticism  to  show,  that  it  does  not  ac- 
cord with  the  original. 

*  Macknight  thinks  this  text  has  some  allusion  to  the  philoso- 


S44 

Trinitarians  argue,  that  certain  texts  of  scripture 
assign  to  Christ  the  attributes  of  the  Deity,  and  hence 
they  infer,  that  he  is  God.  It  has  been  seen  in  the  pre- 
ceding letter,  that  he  asserted,  in  as  positive  language 
as  could  be  used,  that  he  possessed  these  attributes  in 
a  lim'fted  degree.  Did  he  speak  contradictions?  Shall 
we  not  rather  say,  that  texts  of  less  obvious  import 
are  to  be  interpreted  by  those,  whose  meaning  it  is  im- 
possible not  to  perceive?  Shall  we  say  his  knowledge 
was  infinite,  when  he  expressly  asserts,  that  he  did 
<^not  know  the  day,"  in  which  his  prophecy  would 
come  to  pass?  Shall  we  say  his  power  was  infinite^ 
when  he  declares  repeatedly,  that  "he  could  do  nothing 
of  himself,"  and  that  he  received  all  power  from  the 
Father?  Yet,  notwithstanding  these  assertions,  tri- 
nitarians  insist,  that  he  was  omniscient,  omnipotent, 
and  omnipresent. 

To  prove  his  omniscience  they  quote  Matt.  xi.  27, 
"All  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  father;  and 
no  man  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father;  neither know- 
eth  any  man  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom- 
soever the  Son  will  reveal  him."  It  is  unaccountable, 
that  this  text  should  be  cited  to  prove  that  Christ  has 
infinite  knowledge  in  himself,  when  it  is  said  in  so 

phical  notions  of  the  time  in  whicli  it  was  written.  The  phrase 
7rXri^ufA.ct  Qiov,  fulness  of  God,  was  common  among  the  different 
sects  of  philosophers.  The  Gnostics  supposed  this  fulness  to  be 
made  up  of  -^Eons;  the  Jews,  of  angels;  and  the  heathens,  of  in- 
ferior deities.  By  saying  that  this  fulness  dwells  in  Christ  bo- 
dily, the  apostle  would  imply,  "that  the  philosophy,  which  repre- 
sents angels  as  greater  in  power  and  knowledge  than  Christ,  is 
talse."  Macknight  on  the  Epistles,  vol.  iii.  p.  517. 

Eaf^ctrtKOfi,  bodily,  really,  truly.  Schleus.  in  voc.  Potest  hac 
voce  signari  non  corpus,  sed  essentia.    Hammond.  Adnot. 


245 

many  words,  that  '%ll  things  are  delivered  unto  him  of 
the  Father."  Whoever  attends  to  the  context  will  find 
all  thiyis;s  here  to  relate  to  the  gospel  dispensation;  hut 
to  whatever  this  phrase  may  relate,  it  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  a  knowledge,  which  Christ  did  not  possess  of 
himself,  but  which  he  had  received  from  the  Father. 
John  ii.  34.  "He  knew  all  men;  and  needed  not 
that  any  should  testify  of  man;  for  he  knew  what  was 
in  man." 

The  same  divine  wisdom,  by  which  he  was  aided 
in  teaching  so  perfect  a  religion  to  mankind,  enabled 
him  also,  as  a  necessary  prerequisite,  to  have  a  most 
intimate  knowledge  of  human  nature.  Whence  he  de- 
rived this  knowledge,  he  tells  us  in  another  place;  for 
he  says,  "My  Father  hath  taught  me,'*  and  also,  "My 
doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me.''  He  con- 
sequently received  this  knowledge  of  men  from  the 
Father.  Let  such,  as  do  not  believe  this  knowledge 
to  have  been  derived,  answer  the  question,  how  a  be- 
ing, who  already  possessed  infinite  knowledge,  could 
be  taught? 

John  xxi.  17.  "Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things." — 
So  also  it  is  said  in  another  place  of  christians  in  gen- 
eral. 1  John  ii.  SO.  "Ye  have  an  unction  from  the 
Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  tilings.''^  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  if  from  this  text  you  infer  the  omniscience 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  you  must  from  others  infer  the 
same  of  all  christians. 

The  omnipotence  of  Christ  is  supposed  to  be  prov- 
ed from  Phil.  iii.  21.  "Who  shall  change  our  vile 
body,  that  it  shall  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious 
body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able 
even  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself."  Does  this 
88 


S46 

text  imply  any  power  which  could  not  be  derived? 
We  are  told  in  another  part  of  scripture,  2  Cor.  iv,  14. 
''that  he  which  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus,  shall  raise 
us  up  also  by  Jesus." 

Hence,  whatever  change  shall  be  produced  in  us 
by  the  Lord  Jesus,  he  can  only  act  by  the  same  power 
by  which  he  was  raised.  And  in  regard  to  his  "sub- 
duing all  things  unto  himself,"  "it  is  manifest  that  Ac 
is  excepted,  which  did  put  all  things  under  him."  1 
Cor.  XV.  27. 

One  short  declaration  of  Christ,  it  should  seem,  ought 
to  be  enough  to  stop  any  further  inquiry  into  the  ori- 
gin of  his  power.  He  has  said,  "I  can  of  mine  own 
self  do  nothi^/g  "  Why  then  should  we  go  about  to 
prove  a  directly  contrary  position,  that  he  can  of  him- 
self  do  many  things?  Suppose  he  had  power  to  create 
Tvorlds;  how  small  a  portion  of  omnipotence  would  be 
guch  a  power.  "He  hath  authority  to  execute  judg- 
ment;" but  does  he  possess  this  authority  in  himself? 
No;  'Hhe  father  hath  givejj  it  to  him.''  John  v.  S7.  He 
is  "to  be  the  judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead."  By 
his  own  authority?  No;  he  has  been  ordained  of  God 
to  this  office.  Acts  x.  43.  In  almost  every  instance, 
where  uncommon  power  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  it  is 
mentioned  as  coming  from  the  Father.  And  it  may  be 
stated  with  confidence,  that  in  all  the  texts  of  scripture, 
i;n  which  Christ  is  represented  as  possessing  a  high  de- 
gree of  power  or  knowledge,  these  possessions  are  ei- 
ther referred  immediately  to  God,  as  a  distinct  being 
from  Christ,  or  may  be  considered  as  proceeding  from 
him,  without  any  violation  of  the  natural  construction, 
find  obvious  meaning  of  the  language. 
Jesus  is  supposed  to  be  omnipresent^  because  he 


347 

told  his  disciples,  "where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  ray  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them." 
Matt,  xviii.  20.  "And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  xxviii.  20.  The  presence  of 
Christ  mentioned  here,  cannot  he  his  yersonal  presence, 
because  we  know  he  ascended  up  into  heaven.  Ue 
promises  that  wherever  his  followers,  shall  be  gather- 
ed together  in  his  name,  or  for  religious  purposes,  their 
prayers  and  services  shall  be  accompanied  with  all  the 
good  effects,  which  could  flow  from  fehem,  if  he  were 
present,  or  which  his  religion  is  calculated  to  produce. 
He  was  with  his  disciples  in  the  miraculous  powers 
which  they  possessed,  "till  the  end  of  the  world,"  that 
is,  till  the  end  of  the  age,  or  of  the  Jewish  polity. 
During  this  period  he  aided  them  by  the  comforter, 
which  he  had  promised.  This  was  the  apostolic  age, 
after  which,  miracles  and  supernatural  powers  ceased. 
But  if  you  take  these  texts  in  their  most  extended  li« 
teral  sense,  a  sense  in  which  they  are  received  by 
very  few  critics,  the  most  you  can  infer  from  them  is, 
that  Christ  has  the  power  of  knowing,  of  aiding  by  his 
influences,  and  of  conferring  blessings  on  his  followers. 
This  is  very  far  from  proving  him  to  be  present  through- 
out the  universe.- 

*Tiie  end  of  the  world  means,  fer  the  most  part,  in  the  gospels^ 
the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Bishop  Pearce  explains  ihe. 
present  passage  thus;  "/  am  with  you  always^  that  is,  to  assist 
you  in  teaching  all  nations  all  things,  and  by  enabling  you  to  work 
miracles  in  confirmation  of  your  doctrine; — even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world,  that  is,  to  the  end  of  the  age,  or  the  end  of  the  Jewish 
age."  He  further  says,  in  his  commentaries  on  Matt.  xxiv.  5,  "T/ie 
end  of  the  age,  that  is,  of  the  age  in  which  the  Jewish  chuich  and 
state  were  to  last"  This  is  also  the  rendering  of  arclibishop  New- 
come.  The  vulgate  has  it,  usque  ad  consununationetn  sceculi. — 
See  also  Kenrick's  Exposition.  * 


248 

jB^ternal  existence  is  also  said  to  belong  to  Christ. 
John  viii.  58.  "Before  Abraham  was  I  am.'^  This 
text  is  quoted  by  trinitarians,  but  for  what  reason  it  is 
not  easy  to  perceive,  for  Christ  might  have  existed  be- 
fore Abraham,  and  still  not  have  existed  from  eterni- 
ty. So  far  as  eternal  existence  is  concer  ned,  therefore, 
or  equality  of  the  son  with  the  Father,  it  proves  no- 
thing. 

Col.  i.  17.  "He  is  before  all  things.'^  This  un- 
doubtedly means,  that  he  is  exalted  above  all  other 
beings;  he  is  superior  in  dignity  and  excellence  to  all 
things.  If  you  suppose  the  text  to  have  reference  to 
iimef  it  will  afford  no  proof  that  he  existed  from  eter- 
nity; but  only  that  he  was  the  first  created  being.  He 
is  called  the  ^^Jirst-born  of  every  creature,"  which  is  an 
evidence,  that  he  was  a  created  being,  and  must  have 
derived  his  existence  from  God. 

Heb.  xiii.  8.  "Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday, 
to  day,  and  for  ever."  That  is,  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
Christ  will  always  remain  unchanged.  This  is  the 
interpretation  of  Dr.  Clarke,  and  Whitby,  as  well  as 
of  Le  Clerc,  Calvin,  archbishop  Newcome,  and  other 
trinitarians.*  It  is  not  uncommon  in  the  scriptures 
for  the  name  Christ  to  be  put  for  the  doctrine,  or 
religion,  of  Christ.  Acts  v.  42.  "They  ceased  not  to 
4|each  and  preach  Jesus  Christ,"  that  is,  the  doctrine 
of  Christ.  Eph.  iv.  20.  "Ye  have  not  so  learned 
Christ,"  that  is,  his  doctrine, 

Kev.  i.  17.  ''I  am  the  first  and  the  last."  Who- 
ever it  was,  that  spoke  these  words,  it  certainly  could 
not  be  the  ever  living  God,  for  in  the  very  next  verse 

*  "The  evangelical  doctrine,  as  delivered  by  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles." See  Newcome's  note  in  the  Improved  Vers.  Eadem  ilia  doc- 
trinn,  &c.    Hammond  Adnot.  edit.  Clerici. 


249 

lie  continues  to  say,  <a  am  lie  that  liveth,  and  was 
dead.''  For  any  being  to  be  called  the  first  and  the 
last,  therefore,  does  not  necessarily  imply,  that  he  is 
God.  Rev.  xxii.  13.  "I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last."  It 
is  inferred  from  this  text,  that  the  person  speaking 
could  be  no  other  than  God.  But  look  back  in  the 
same  chapter  to  the  ninth  verse,  and  you  will  find  the 
messenger,  who  spoke  these  words,  rebuking  John 
for  "falling  down  to  worship  before  his  feet,"  and  say- 
ing to  him,  "see  that  thou  do  it  not;  for  I  am  ihy  fel- 
low servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of 
them  which  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book;  worship 
God,''  Could  this  be  the  eternal  God,  who  told  John, 
that  he  was  his  fellow  servant,  and  who  refused  to  re- 
ceive worship  from  him?  We  hence  see,  that  these  epi- 
thets, or  titles,  if  they  are  to  be  applied  to  Christ,  so  far 
from  proving  him  to  be  God,  were  actually  given  to  a 
person,  or  being,  who  had  died,  who  declared  him- 
self to  be  a  fellow  servant  with  John,  and  who  would 
not  suffer  himself  to  be  worshipped.  What  precise 
meaning  is  to  be  taken  from  the  phrases  Mpha  and 
Omega,  the  first  and  the  last,  it  is  not  necessary  for  our 
pi^esent  purpose  to  inquire,  since  the  context  proves,  that 
they  cannot  afford  even  a  shadow  of  evidence  in  favour 
of  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ.  As  it  is  impossible 
they  should  denote  the  one  true  God,  since  God  can- 
not die,  it  seems  most  rational  to  consider  them  as  re 
lating  to  the  christian  dispensation.  Of  this  dispen- 
sation, Christ  was  the  first  and  the  last;  it  was  begun 
and  finished  by  him;  it  was  entirely  his  work. 

Another  argument  for  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ, 
trinitarians  find  in  certain  texts  of  scripture,  in  which 


250 

they  say  lie  is  made  the  the  object  of  worsJiip.  The 
strength  of  this  argument  rests  on  the  scriptural  mean- 
ing of  the  word  worship,  and  of  those  terms  and  phrases 
in  which  worship  is  supposed  to  be  implied.  If  this 
same  word,  and  these  same  terms  are  applied  to  other 
persons  besides  Christ,  then  the  application  of  them  to 
him  can  be  no  proof  of  his  being  (rod.  A  little  exami- 
nation will  show  this  to  be  the  fact.  And  it  is  believed, 
that  in  every  text  in  which  it  is  thought  worship  or 
honour  is  rendered  to  Christ,  a  proper  understanding 
of  the  context  will  convince  any  fair  mind,  that  the 
person  writing,  or  speaking,  did  not  consider  himself 
addressing  Christ  as  God. 

When  we  remsember,  also,  how  explicit  our  Lord 
was  in  his  directions  about  worshipping  the  Father, 
and  HIM  ONLY,  we  ought  to  be  very  cautious  how  we 
allow  ourselves  to  violate  his  express  command,  and 
ascribe  to  any  other  being  that  reverence,  and  those 
honours,  which  belong  to  the  Father  alone.  He  was 
positive  in  his  commands  to  his  followers,  that  they 
should  worship  the  Father;  he  always  worshipped  the 
Father,  nor  has  he  in  a  single  instance  intimated,  that 
divine  worship  is  to  be  rendered  to  himself,  or  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  And  if  we  allow  him  to  be  the  angel,  men- 
tioned in  Revelations,  conversing  with  John,  he  there 
not  only  renews  his  command  to  "worship  God,"  but 
implies  in  strong  language,  that  he  himself  is  not  to  be 
worshipped.  Now  since  every  text  of  scripture  will 
admit  of  a  natural  and  fair  explanation,  on  the  prin- 
ciple  of  rendering  divine  worship  to  the  Father  only, 
is  it  not  much  more  consistent  with  just  rules  of  inter- 
pretation, thus  to  explain  them,  than  to  press  them 
into  the  support  of  a  doctrine  totally  at  variance  with 


S51 

one  of  the  plainest  and  most  positive  injunctions  o\' 
our  Saviour?  If  we  worship  Christ,  we  do  not  wor- 
ship  the  Father  only;  and  if  we  do  not  worship  the 
Father  only,  we  violate  a  command  of  the  gospel. 

The  word  worship  does  not  always  signify  religi- 
ous reverence,  but  sometimes  civil  homage  or  respect. 
"The  king  Nebuchadnezzar  fell  on  his  face,  and  wor- 
shipped Daniel."  Dan.  ii.  46.  And  all  the  congre- 
gation bowed  their  heads,  and  worshipped  the  Lord 
and  the  kins;.''  i  Chron.  xxix.  20.  »*And  so  it  was, 
when  he  came  to  David,  that  he  fell  on  the  earth,  and 
did  obeisance,"  (worshipped  him.)  2  Samuel  i.  2.  "And 
all  the  king's  servants,  that  were  in  the  king's  gate, 
bowed  and  reverenced  (worshipped)  Haman;  but  Mor- 
decai  bowed  not,  nor  did  him  reverence,"  (nor  worship- 
ped him.)  Esther  iii.  3.  The  servant,  in  the  parable 
of  the  talents,  is  represented  as  having  worshipped  his 
master.  Matt,  xviii.  26.  *^As  Peter  was  coming  in, 
Cornelius  met  him  and  fell  down  at  his  feet,  and  wor- 
shipped him."  Acts  x.  25.  Examples  of  a  similar 
kind  are  exceedingly  numerous  in  the  old  Testament. 
From  these  it  appears,  that  kings,  and  other  men  in 
eminent  stations,  were  worshipped.  It  follows,  that 
the  same  kind  of  reverence  shown  to  Christ,  is  not  a 
proof  of  his  having  been  God.* 

*  The  word  rendered  worship  is  x^oiKweu.  It  occurs  nearly 
two  hundred  times  in  the  septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  is  sometimes  translated  worship,  at  others  reverence,  and 
obeisance,  but  most  commonly  to  bow  down.  When  the  sons  of 
the  prophets  came  out  to  meet  Elisha,  "they  bowed  themselves 
to  the  ground  before  him,"  literally,  they  worshipped  him  on  the 
ground.  2  Kings  ii.  16.  The  word  derives  its  signification  from 
the  eastern  custom  of  prostration  in  token  pf  submission  to  a  sove- 


It  is  said  of  Christ,  Matt.  viii.  S,  ^^There  came  a 
leper  and  worshipped  him,"  literally,  boit-ed  down 
before  him,  or,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  coun- 
try, showed  him  a  peculiar  mark  of  reverence  and  re- 
spect, as  Cornelius  afterwards  showed  to  Peter.  The 
same  may  be  said  ^*of  a  certain  ruler  who  came  and 
worshipped  him.  ix.  18.  After  he  had  walked  on  the 
sea  and  stilled  the  winds,  "they  that  were  in  the  ship 
came  and  woi'shipped  him,"  but  not  as  God,  for  they 
immediately  after  say,  "Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son 
of  God,"  xiv.  33.  They  manifested  towards  him  that 
reverence  and  submission,  which,  as  the  messenger  of 
God,  he  ought  to  receive. 

Certain  passages  of  scripture  are  supposed  by  some 
to  afford  an  evidence,  that  prayers  were  offered  to 
Christ,  because  mention  is  made  in  them  of  calling  on 
his  name.  But  this  is  an  erroneous  interpretation  of 
the  phrase.  Calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
does  not  signify  the  act  of  addressing  him  with  pray- 
ers or  supplications.  Acts  ii.  SI.  "Whosoever  shall 
call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  Now 
whether  this  text  refers  to  God,  or  to  the  Lord  Jesus, 
it  is  evident  that  it  cannot  allude  to  the  simple  exer- 
cise of  prayer  or  worship,  because  no  one  can  suppose, 
that  by  this  alone  salvation  can  be  procured.  Calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord  must  mean,  in  this  place,  a 
sincere  discharge  of  every  religious  duty,  for  such 
only  is  the  condition  of  salvation.     Any  person  who 

reign  or  prince.  It  came  at  length  to  denote  a  mode  of  salutation, 
or  of  showing  respect  to  a  superior,  and  in  this  sense  is  very  com- 
monly used  in  the  New  Testament.  We  can  determine  when  it 
means  religious  adoration,  only  from  the  connexion  in  which  it  is 
"jsed. 


253 

embraces  and  obeys  the  religion  of  Christ,  is  one,  who. 
in  the  scripture  sense  of  the  phrase,  calls  on  his  name. 
Acts  ix.  IJ-.  *'And  here  he  hatli  authority  from  the 
chief  priests  to  bind  all  that  call  on  thy  name;'^  that 
is,  all  that  have  embraced  thy  religion,  and  become 
thy  followers,  xxii.  16.  ^^And  now,  why  tarriest  thou? 
arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  call- 
ing on  the  name  of  the  Lord;'^  that  is,  receiving  the 
truths,  and  obeying  the  commands  of  the  christian  re- 
ligion. Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians,  and  to  "all 
that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.''  1  Cor.  i.  S.  This  address  was  made  to 
all,  who  had  become  christian  converts,- 

Phil.  ii.  9, 10,  11.  "Wherefore,  God  also  hath  high- 
ly exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name,  which  is  above 
every  name;  that  at  (in)  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth, 
and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue 
should  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father." 

The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  very  clear.  It  is 
expressive  of  the  exaltation  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  ex- 
tent and  authority  of  his  religion.  Kvery  knee  is  to 
how,  or  God  is  to  be  worshipped,  in  his  name;  that  is, 
in  conformity  with  the  spirit  and  rules  of  his  religion. 
All  intelligent  beings  are  finally  to  become  the  true 

*  Wakefield  observes,  that  "this  is  in  very  many  instances  a 
Hebrew  phrase  for  a  religious  man — one,  who  acknowleclo;es  the 
being  and  providence  of  God — one  dedicated  to  his  service.**  See 
Wakefield  on  Actsti.  21.  Hinc  factum  est,  ut  *';ir;nula  sTrixxP^sic-. 
6x1  ovof^x  Tivoi  significaret  in  universiim,  profiteri  religionem 
aliciijus.  Schleu«.  in  voc.  i-xiy,%>.. 
34 


S54 

worshippers  of  God  through  the  religion  of  Jesu& 
Christ.  This  religion,  also,  is  to  have  a  universal 
j)revalence,  and  all  nations  will  ultimately  confess, 
that  Jesus  was  a  divine  messenger,  and  glorify  God 
for  liis  goodness  in  sending  him  into  the  world  em- 
powered with  so  high  a  commission.  No  text  is  more 
explicit  than  this,  in  expressing  the  superiority  of  God 
the  Father  to  Christ.  However  highly  Christ  is  ex- 
alted, we  are  told  it  is  God,  who  has  exalted  him. 

John  V.  22,  23.  **The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but 
hath  committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son,  that  all  men 
should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Fa- 
ther. He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not 
the  Father,  who  hath  sent  him." 

That  this  text  should  be  brought  forward  to  prove, 
that  we  are  to  worship  Christ  as  God,  or  to  honour 
one  in  an  equal  degree  with  the  other,  is  certainly 
somewhat  surprising.  In  the  first  place  it  is  said,  the 
'^Father  hath  committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son;"  and 
next,  that  ^*he  hath  sent  him,"  both  of  which  declara- 
tions show,  as  clearly  as  can  be  shown,  that  they  are 
distinct  beings,  and  that  one  derives  his  power  and 
authority  from  the  other.  The  text  itself,  therefore, 
points  out  the  impropriety  of  honouring  one  in  an  equal 
degree  with  the  other.  We  should  honour  God,  as  the 
Supreme  Being,  and  the  author  of  our  religious  pri- 
vileges; and  we  should  honour  Chri«t,  as  the  messen- 
ger, whom  he  has  dignified  with  the  high  commission 
of  revealing  the  divine  will  to  man,  and  of  becoming, 
by  his  doctrines  and  example,  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
Any  disrespect  to  the  authority  of  Christ,  is  a  disre- 
spect to  God,  from  whom  he  received  his  commission 
and  power.    Instead  of  affording  any  argument  for  the 


255 

supreme  worship  of  Christ,  this  text  confcaias  au  im 
plied  injunction  to  the  contrary.* 

Tliere  are  some  passages  in  which  glory,  thanks, 
and  gratitude  are  rendered  to  Christ.  2  Peter  iii.  18, 
"To  him  be  glory  both  now  and  for  ever.''  1  Tim. 
i.  12.  "I  thank  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  who  hath  en- 
abled me,  for  that  he  counted  me  faithful,  putting  me 
into  the  ministry.^'  All  christians,  unitarians  as  well 
as  trinitarians,  will  undoubtedly  unite  in  the  senti- 
ments contained  in  these  and  other  similar  texts.  AU 
will  be  ready  to  render  glory,  and  honour,  and  thanks- 
giving, and  gratitude  to  him,  who  has  been  so  highly 
exalted  of  God,  who  was  empowered  from  heaven  to 
work  miracles,  and  publish  a  new  and  divine  religion 
to  the  world,  who  lived  a  life  of  privation  and  sufler- 
ing,  and  at  length  submitted  to  an  ignominious  death, 
for  the  present  happiness  and  eternal  salvation  of  men, 
— all  christians  will  revere  the  dignity  of  his  charac- 
ter, acknowledge  the  perfection  of  his  doctrines  and 
example,  yield  a  willing  and  cheerful  obedience  to  his 
authority,  and  feel  the  warmest  gratitude  for  his  bene- 
volent exertions,  and  affectionate  solicitude  in  behalf 
of  the  whole  human  race.  But  every  one  should  be 
cautious,  how  he  renders  to  Christ  those  honours,  and 
those  ascriptions  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  which 
belong  to  the  Father  only.  There  can  be  but  one  su- 
preme object  of  spiritual  worship,  or  of  religious  ho- 

*  The  meaning  of  the  text  is  much  impaired  by  a  wrong  trans- 
lation of  a  single  word,  fnstead  of  rendering  xxi<ui,  even  as,  it 
should  be  since,  or  seeing.  Vid.  Schlous.  Also  Macknight's  Pre- 
lim. Essays.  Es.  4.  No.  203.  There  is  a  similar  example  in  Eph. 
i.  3.  "Who  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heaven- 
ly places  in  Christ,  (k.«S«?)  since,  seeing,  he  hath  chosen  us,"  &.c. 


256 

mage,  and  that  is  God.  He  is  the  Being,  whom  our 
Saviour  worshipped,  and  commanded  his  followers  to 
worship.  To  him  all  honour,  and  glory,  and  praise 
are  due,  and  when  we  ascribe  these  to  any  other  be- 
ing, except  in  a  limited  degree,  how  can  it  be  said, 
that  we  are  the  true  worshippers,  who  worship  the 
Father?  Or  how  can  it  be  said,  that  we  "worship 
the  Lord  our  God,  and  him  only?"* 

1  John  V.  7-  "For  there  are  three  that  bear  record 
in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three  that 
bear  witness  in  earth,  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the 
blood;  and  these  three  agree  in  one." 

This  text  has  been  so  often,  and  so  thoroughly  exa- 
mined, and  the  words  in  italics  so  universally  reject- 
ed, that  I  should  not  think  it  a  proper  use  of  time  to 
say  a  word  on  the  subject,  did  I  not  know  it  still  to 
be  quoted,  as  a  portion  of  the  true  scriptures,  both  by 
preachers  of  the  episcopal  and  other  churches.  I  can 
give  only  a  short  sketch  of  the  reasons,  which  prove 
it  not  to  have  been  written  by  the  apostle. 

In  the  iirst  place,  it  merits  our  attention,  that  the  sense 
of  the  passage  is  not  injured  by  leaving  this  verse  out. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  rather  improved.  The  connex- 
ion is  closer  without  it.  The  witnesses  mentioned  iu 
this  verse  had  not  been  introduced  before,  but  the  wa- 
ter, blood,  and  spirit,  mentioned  in  the  sixth  verse, 
are  brought  forward  in  such  a  manner  in  the  eighth, 
as  plainly  to  indicate,  that  the  seventh  has  been  in- 
serted between  them. 

'^  For  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  nature  and  object  of  religious 
worship,  see  a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Aspland,  entitled, 
V  Vindication  of  Unitarian  Worshin,  London,  1810. 


S57 

The  text  in  question  has  never  been  found  in  any 
Greek  manuscript,  which  was  written  earlier  ih^in  four- 
teen hundred  years  after  Christ.  It  is  contained  in 
no  Latin  manuscript,  which  was  written  before  the 
ninth  century.  It  is  not  contained  in  any  of  the  an- 
cient manuscripts  of  the  eastern  languages. 

It  was  never  quoted  by  the  Greek  fathers  in  their 
controversies  on  the  trinity.  A  stronger  proof  than 
this  cannot  possibly  be  advanced,  that  they  had  no 
knowledge  of  such  a  text.  Tliey  often  cited  the  verse 
preceding,  and  the  verse  following,  to  prove  the  divi- 
nity of  the  Son;  but  this  verse,  which  is  much  more  to 
the  point,  they  never  adduced.  Neither  was  it  quot- 
ed by  the  early  Latin  fathers.  In  many  editions  of 
the  Bible,  after  the  reformation,  it  was  either  omitted, 
or  inclosed  in  brackets,  to  show  that  it  was  doubtful. 
It  was  omitted  in  Luther's  German  version,  and  mark- 
ed as  doubtful  in  the  early  editions  of  the  English 
Bible.* 

Many  of  the  ablest  trinitariau  critics  of  the  last  and 
present  age,  have  rejected  this  text  as  spurious.  Bi- 
shop Lowth,  in  a  letter  to  Michaelis,  says,  ^*We  have 
some  wranglers  in  theology,  sworn  to  follow  their 
master,  who  are  prepared  to  defend  any  thing,  however 
absurd,  should  there  be  occasion.  But  I  believe  there 
is  no  one  among  us,  in  the  least  degree  conversant 
with  sacred  criticism,  and  having  the  use  of  his  un- 

*  In  the  old  English  Bibles  of  Ileniy  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  the 
words  of  this  text  were  either  printed  in  smaller  letters,  or  enclos- 
ed in  a  parenthesis.  The  same  was  observed  in  queen  Elizabeth's 
Bible  of  1566;  but  shortly  after,  the  words  began  to  be  printed 
without  any  mark  to  distinguish  them  from  otlier  parts  of  the  Bi- 
ble. See  Commentaries  and  Essays,  published  by  the  Society  for 
nrnmoting  thp  Knowledge  of  the  Scriptnros,  vol  i.  p.  14-1. 


258 

tlerstaudiug,  who  would  be  willing  to  contend  for  the 
genuineness  of  this  verse.* 

Archbishop  Newcome  has  left  it  out  of  his  transla- 
tion. 

The  bishop  of  Lincoln  says,  'Hhat  after  an  atten- 
tive consideration  of  the  controversy  relative  to  this 
passage,  I  am  convinced  that  it  is  spurious. "f 

Dr.  Jortin  expresses  himself  as  follows;  ^'This  text 
of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  keeps  its  place  in  our 
Bibles,  in  bold  defiance  to  the  fullest  and  clearest  evi- 
dei>ce  against  it." 

Dr.  Doddridge  enclosed  the  passage  in  brackets; 
and  expressed  his  doubts  as  to  its  being  genuine. 

A  trinitarian  writer  in  the  Eclectic  Review,  in  an 
article  written  professedly  again &t  unitarians,  says, 
after  some  remarks  on  this  text,  "Under  these  circum- 
stances, we  are  unspeakably  ashamed,  that  any  mo- 
dern divine  should  have  fought,  pedibus  et  ungui- 
buSf  for  the  retention  of  a  passage  so  indisputably 
spurious.  We  could  adduce  half  a  dozen,  or  half  a 
score  passages  of  ample  length,  supported  by  better 
authority  than  this,  but  which  are  rejected  in  every 
printed  edition  and  translation. "J 

After  a  most  critical  examination  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, Grriesbach  rejected  the  text  as  totally  indefensi- 
ble.^ 

'See  a  part  of  the  original  letter  in  the  Christian  Disciple,  vol,. 
i.  p.  109.  quoted  from  Michaelis's  Literary  Correspondence,  part 
\  p.  428. 

t  Elements  of  Christian  Theology,  vol  ii.  p.  90.    Note. 

V  See  Christian  Disciple,  vol.  i.  p.  109.  Eclectic  Review  for 
March,  1809. 

^  E-'O  quidem,  si  tanti  esset,  sexcentas  lectiones  ab  omnibus 


S59 

Bishop  Middleton  and  Mr.  Waidlaw  consider  it 
spurious. 

Such  are  the  opinions  of  a  number  of  the  most  learn- 
ed trinitarians.  Many  more  uiight  be  quoted.  Travis 
wrote  largely  in  defence  of  the  text^  but  was  answer- 
ed in  such  a  manner  by  Porson,  and  bishop  Marsh, 
that  no  one,  especially  since  the  investigations  of 
Griesbach,  will  probably  be  inclined  to  revive  the 
controversy.* 

Sir  Isaac  Newton,  also,  wrote  a  treatise  against 
the  genuineness  of  this  verse,  in  two  letters  to  Le 
Clerc,  which  are  said  to  be  "written  with  force,  can- 

rejectas  atque  futilissimas  defendere  possem,  testimoniis  et  rati- 
onibus  seque  multis  atque  validis,  imo  pluribus  plerumque  atque 
validioribus,  quam  sunt  ea  quibus  utuntur  hujus  died  patroni. 
Diatrib.  in  loc  1  lohan.  v.  7.  p.  25. 

*It  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  bishop  Seabury,  in  his  charge 
delivered  in  Derby,  Connecticut,  September  1786,  declared  the 
genuineness  of  this  text  to  be  "incontestably  established  by  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Travis."  p.  10.  But  it  would  seem,  by  the  proceedings 
of  the  first  American  convention,  tliat  the  bishop's  authority,  in 
the  affairs  of  church  government  at  least,  was  not  treated  with 
the  most  profound  respect. 

In  the  critical  notes  to  the  Greek  and  English  Testament,  pub- 
lished by  Roberts,  1729,  after  examining  the  evidence  in  relation 
to  this  text,  the  editor  observes,  ''If  this  evidence  is  not  suflicicni 
to  prove,  that  the  controverted  text  in  St.  John  is  spiirioua;  by 
what  evidence  can  it  be  proved,  that  any  text  in  St.  John  is  ge- 
nuine?" 

Dr.  Wall,  in  his  Critical  Notes  on  ihe  Greek  Testament,  pub- 
lished 1730,  has  the  following  remark  on  John  v.  7.  "Tliis  verse  is' 
in  no  Greek  manuscript,  nor  was  in  the  Bibles  of  ancient  christi- 
ans, nor  ever  made  use  of  by  them  in  their  disputes  with  the  Ari 
ans.  Mill  has  so  defended  it,  that  he,  who  thought  it  genuine 
before,  will  now  conclude  it  to  have  been  interpolated  by  some 
I^atin  scribe  first."    Comment,  and  Essays,  p.  14"^. 


Sf50 

dour,  and  perspicuity.'^  Thf^y  were  published  after 
his  death  in  Horsley's  edition  of  his  works.* 

Even  Beza  and  Calvin  did  not  allow,  that  this  text 
affords  any  argument  for  the  trinity.  According  to 
these  writers,  it  is  not  a  unity  of  number,  which  is 
here  spoken  of,  but  a  unity  of  testimony.  Calvin  says, 
it  is  a  unity  of  agreement,  and  not  of  essence;  that  is, 
these  three  witnesses  are  one,  in  the  same  sense,  as 
the  water,  blood,  and  spirit  are  one.  They  all  agree 
in  one  testimony.! 

All  the  persons,  whom  1  have  mentioned  as  reject- 
ing this  text,  except  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  were  trinitari- 
ans;  and  since  such  is  the  overwhelming  evidence  of 
its  being  spurious,  it  seems  truly  incredible,  that  any 
preacher  should  be  found  at  the  present  day,  so  re- 
gardless of  his  reputation  for  scholarship,  for  candour, 
and  for  honesty,  as  publicly  to  quote  and  urge  this  text 
to  an  uninformed  audience,  as  of  equal  authority  with 
the  rest  of  the  scriptures.  The  only  plea,  which  such 
a  person  can  make,  that  ouglit  to  have  any  claims  on 
our  charity,  is  ignorance.  But  this  is  a  plea  to  which 
few,  who  make  any  pretensions  to  theological  attain- 
ments, can  resort.  It  must,  indeed,  be  a  cause  of  se- 
Yioufi  regret  to  every  friend  of  pure  religion,  that  any 
one  can  make  it  with  sincerity.  But  it  is  still  more  to 
be  lamented  by  all  such,  as  wish  for  the  success  of  re- 
ligious truth,  that  any  teachers  of  the  gospel  should 

*  Butler's  Iloree  Biblicse,  p.  378.  Newton's  Works,  vol.  v, — 
These  Letters  were  printed  separately  in  London,  1754.  A 
copy  of  this  edition  is  in  the  library  of  Harvard  University. 

t  Ita  prorsus  consentiunt  ac  si  uniis  testis  essent.  Beza. — Quod 
dicit,  tres  esse  unum,  ad  essentiam  non  refertur,  set!  ad  consen- 
sum  potius,  Calvin.    See  Macknight,  vol.  vi.  p.  109. 


S61 

knowingly  and  wilfully  be  the  means  of  dissemiaating 
error,  and  of  imposing  on  the  ignorance  and  credulity 
of  the  multitude,  by  repeating  to  theui  as  the  record 
of  divine  truth,  what  has  been  most  undeniably  prov 
ed  to  be  an  unwarrantable  fabrication  of  men. 

Matt,  xxviii.  19.  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  (into)  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'' 

The  word  namej  by  a  Hebrew  idiom,  is  often  redun- 
dant. The  phrases  name  of  God,  name  of  the  Lord, 
frequently  express  nothing  more  than  God,  and  Lord, 
The  Psalmist  says,  <^I  will  praise  the  name  of  God 
with  a  song;"  that  is,  "I  will  praise  God  with  a  song,'' 
Ps.  Ixix.  30.  "The  name  of  the  Lord  is  a  strong 
tower."  Prov.  xviii.  10.  "Blessed  be  the  name  of 
God  for  ever  and  ever."  Dan.  ii.  20.  "I  will  cut 
off  the  name  of  the  Chemarims.^'  Zeph.  i.  4.  In  all 
these  examples,  the  word  name  is  redundant^  and 
might  be  omitted  without  affecting  the  sense. 

In  other  cases  the  name  of  any  person  signifies  the 
autJiority,  or  doctrine  of  that  person.  "I  am  come  in 
my  father's  name,"  John  v.  4<3;  that  is,  by  the  autho- 
rity of  my  Father.  "In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  rise 
up  and  walk,"  Acts  iii.  6;  that  is,  by  the  authority 
of  Jesus  Christ.  "By  what  power  or  name  have  ye 
done  this?"  iv.  7>  or,  "by  what  power  or  authority 
have  ye  done  this?"  St.  Paul  says,  "I  verily  thought 
with  myself,  that  I  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary 
to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  xxvi.  9;  that  is, 
contrary  to  the  authority  or  doctrine  of  Jesus  of  Na- 
zareth. *^In  his  name  (authority,  or  doctrine)  shall  the 
GenUles  trust."  Matt.  xii.  21. 
3.^ 


202 

It  hence  follows,  that  being  "baptized  into  the  name" 
of  any  person^  is  the  same  as  being  baptized  into  the 
doctrine  of  that  person,  or  into  the  person  himself; 
and  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  a  thing,  is  the 
same  as  being  baptized  into  the  thing  itself.  This  is 
consistent  with  what  is  stated  in  other  places.  "For 
as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ, 
have  put  on  Christ,"  Gal.  iii.  27.  "Know  ye  not,  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christy 
were  baptized  into  his  deathP^'  llom.  vi.  3.  "They 
were  all  baptized  unto  fintoj  Moses  in  the  cloud." 
1  Cor.  X.  3. 

From  these  passages  we  must  be  convinced,  that  no 
argument  can  be  derived  from  the  text  under  consid- 
eration, in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  per- 
sons in  the  godhead.  To  be  baptized  into  the  name 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  does  not  imply,  that  this  spirit  is 
a  person,  any  more  than  that  death  is  a  person,  for  the 
same  reason.  And  if  to  be  baptized  into  Christ  be  a 
proof,  that  h(j  is  equal  with  God,  you  may  infer  the 
same  of  Moses. 

"To  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  any  person,"  says 
Schleusner,  "signifies  to  profess,  by  the  rite  of  baptism, 
a  determination  to  be  devoted  to  his  doctrines,  his  au- 
thority and  his  institutions."  They,  who  "were  bap- 
tized into  Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea,"  were 
such  as  professed  to  be  his  followers  and  yield  to  his 
authority.  To  be  baptized  into  Christ,  is  to  express 
an  acknowledgment  of  his  authority,  and  a  resolution 
to  obey  his  commands,  and  copy  his  example.  When 
Paul  expressed  his  fears,  "lest  any  should  say,  that 
he  had  baptized  in  his  own  name,"  his  meaning  was, 
that  none  wliom  he  baptized  should   consider  them- 


263 

selves  his  disciples,  but  practical  believers  of  the  re 
ligion  of  Christ. 

In  other  words,  to  be  baptized  into  any  person,  or 
thing,  is  to  make  a  public  profession  of  faith  in  tliat 
person,  or  thing.  Faith  is  the  first  requisite  of  a  reli- 
gious life.  We  cannot  obey,  till  we  believe;  and  if 
our  faith  be  rational  and  sincere,  we  shall  scarcely  be 
wanting  in  obedience.  One  implies  the  other;  so  that 
to  acknowledge  a  sincere  faith  in  the  christian  reli- 
gion, by  the  ceremony  of  baptism,  is  the  same,  as  re- 
solving to  give  heed  to  its  injunctions,  and  confide  in 
its  promises. 

Baptism  was  designed  as  a  rite  of  initiation  into 
the  christian  church.  To  be  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  was  to  express  a 
belief  that  God  was  the  original  author  of  the  chris- 
tian religion;  that  Christ  was  empowered  by  divine 
aid  to  publish  it  to  the  world;  and  that  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  a  divine  agency,  was  manifest 
in  the  miraculous  powers  and  gifts,  which  were  exer- 
cised, both  by  our  saviour  and  his  disciples.*  It  is 
easy  to  perceive  for  what  reason  this  form  of  baptism 
was  instituted.  It  comprises  the  three  principal  sub- 
jects of  christian  faith.  Whoever  professes  a  sincere 
and  ratioual  belief  in  these,  can  give  no  firmer  indica- 
tion, as  far  as  faith  goes,  that  he  is  a  christian.  T  here 
was  a  special,  as  well  as  a  general  reason,  why  the. 
Holy  Spirit  should  be  connected  m  ith  the  other  two. 
The  enemies  of  Jesus,  and  of  his  religion,  imputed 
the  miracles,  which  he  wrought,  to  a  diabolical  agen- 
cy, and  said,  "he  casteth  out  demons  by  the  prince  of 

*  Baptismua  datur  in  nomen   rov  «?ror£/A«vTo?  n«r^o?,  rof 

eAflovras  XpiG-Tov,rov  iA,xo7v^ii<Tetira^  ■7rct^xyi.Xr,rov.  Clement.  ViiJ. 

Resonmul.    Vol.  I.  p.  575. 


864f 

eleraons."  It  was  important,  that  such  impressious 
should  be  done  away  as  speedily  and  effectually  as 
possible,  and  that  his  works  should  be  referred  to  their 
true  source,  the  power  and  influence  of  God.  This 
end  could  easily  be  accomplished,  by  making  it  a  part 
of  the  baptismal  ceremony  to  acknowledge  the  ope- 
ration of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  immediate  agency  of 
God,  in  confirming  the  truths  of  the  gospel.*  This  is 
rendered  the  more  probable,  from  the  circumstance  of 
there  being  no  instance  on  record  in  which  the  whole 
form  was  used.  Those  persons,  who  had  seen  such 
wonderful  effects  of  the  Spirit,  as  to  render  it  impossi- 
ble for  them  to  doubt  of  their  true  cause,  were  for  this 
reason,  perhaps,  not  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Spirit. 
Whether  this  conjecture  be  correct  or  not,  it  is  certain 
the  apostles  did  not  consider  this  form  as  absolutely 
essential,  since  it  was  not  always,  if  ever,  employed 
by  them. 

There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  the  form  itself,  nor 
in  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  which  can  induce  us 
to  think,  that  because  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  men- 
tioned in  this  connexion,  we  are  to  take  them  to  be 
oqual  to  the  Father.  If  so  important  a  doctrine  Were 
to  be  inculcated  in  this  form  of  baptism,  it  certainly 
would  not  have  been  so  uniformly  omitted  by  the 
apostles.  It  is,  also,  to  be  noticed,  that  in  the  verse 
immediately  preceding,  Christ  says,  "AH  power  is 
GIVEN  unto  me  in  heaven,  and  in  earth."  If  he  were 
God,  it  could  never  be  said,  that  all  his  power  was 
given  to  him;  and  this  acknowledgment  of  his  depen- 
dence, in  immediate  connexion  with  the  form  of  bap- 

*  Marsonr's  Sermon  on  the  Impersonality  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
third  edition,  London,  1812,  p.  38. 


^65 

tism,  IS  another  and  an  unanswerable  proof,  that  no 
such  doctrine  can  be  deduced  from  it,  as  his  equality 
with  the  Father. 

2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  "The  ^race  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all.-' 

Many  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  begun  and 
ended  with  devout  wishes,  similar  to  those  here  ex- 
pressed. Some  have,  in  these,  discovered  traces  of 
religious  worship  offered  to  three  beings,  and  have 
hence  inferred  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  But  such 
inferences  will  hardly  stand  the  test  of  examination. 

The  grace,  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  favour 
of  Christ,  means  the  gospel  of  Christ,  or  all  the  bles- 
sings, privileges,  consolations,  and  hopes,  which  are 
enjoyed  through  this  gospel.  We  are  especially  in- 
debted for  these  to  the  grace,  or  favour  of  Christ,  be- 
cause it  was  from  the  purest  motives  of  benevolence 
and  good  will,  that  he  suffered  so  much  for  the  benefit 
and  happiness  of  men.  The  apostle  expresses  a  de- 
sire that  these  blessings,  of  which,  we  have  been  made 
partakers  through  Christ,  may  abound  to  the  Corin- 
thians to  whom  he  is  writing;  and,  also,  that  they  may 
be  favoured  with  the  love,  or  approbation  of  God. 

By  "the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,^'  is  meant 
a  participation  of  the  gifts,  powers,  or  influences,  which 
go  under  its  name.  In  writing  to  the  Philippians, 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  "their  fellowship  (communion,  or 
participation)  in  the  gospel,"  and  of  their  "fellowship 
of  the  Spirit."^'  What  can  be  meant  here,  but  a  joint 

*  The  word  Koivu»ia\s  translated  proiniscuousIj/(.7/o<rsA/jD,  com- 
muyiion,  participation;  but  the  last  seems  to  be  preferably — 
SchlousTifr  in  voc  Yat'^'^V  "^'indication,  p.  171. 


jjavticipation  of  the  blessings  of  the  gospel,  and  of 
spiritual  gifts?  If  you  make  the  Holy  Spirit  a  per- 
son, what  idea  can  you  attach  to  the  apostle's  language? 
How  could  the  Corinthians  join  in  the  participation  of 
a  person?  We  may  commune  or  participate  with,  but 
not  of  a  person,  and  it  is  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  there 
is  no  such  expression  in  scripture,  as  communion  with 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  language  of  the  text  itself, 
therefore,  renders  it  certain,  that  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  this  place,  cannot  be  understood  a  person,  or  being, 
much  less  the  supreme  God.  The  words  of  the  apos- 
tle imply  nothing  more,  than  a  benevolent  wish,  that 
to  the  Corinthians  might  abound  the  blessings  confer- 
red by  the  gospel  of  Christ,  the  love  or  favour  of  God, 
and  the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.— 
All  other  texts  of  this  description  will  be  found  to  re- 
quire a  similar  explanation. 

1  have  thus  examined  some  of  the  principal  passages 
of  scripture,  which  are  usually  quoted  in  support  of 
the  trinity.  Others  may  have  been  omitted,  which 
are  thought  important,  but  my  limits  have  allowed  me 
to  select  only  the  most  prominent.  I  cannot  refrain 
from  repeating  a  fact,  at  which  I  have  before  hinted, 
that  every  text,  which  I  have  examined,  has  been  in- 
terpreted, by  some  one  or  more  of  the  ablest  trinitarian 
r.ritics,  in  a  manner  perfectly  consistent  with  the  unita- 
rian exposition.  This  fact  should  teach  some  persons 
to  urge  with  more  gentleness  the  charge,  which  is  often 
brought  agaiust  unitarians,  of  attempting  to  put  a  forced 
<  onstruction  on  such  texts  of  scripture,  as  do  not  seem 
at  first  to  harmonize  with  their  sentiments.  The 
meaning  of  some  of  the  most  difficult  passages  is  to  be 
settled  by  fair  and  patient  criticism,  in  which  learning, 


S67 

judgment,  and  candour,  are  the  only  guides  that  cau 
be  trusted.  These  may  be  exercised  by  persons  of 
one  religious  denomination,  as  well  as  of  another;  and 
we  show  but  little  regard  for  the  cause  of  truth,  when 
we  suffer  our  prejudices,  and  zeal  for  a  party,  to  blind 
our  eyes  to  the  light,  which  the  judicious  inquiries  of 
learned  men,  whatever  may  have  been  their  private 
opinions,  have  thrown  upon  the  scriptures.  By  neglect- 
ing to  be  informed,  and  refusing  to  inquire,  we  not 
only  manifest  a  love  of  ignorance,  but  a  fear,  that  our 
faith  is  of  too  flimsy  a  texture  to  bear  a  close  exami- 
nation. 

If  we  place  any  value  in  religious  attainments,  in  a 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  our  duty,  we  shall  eagerly 
seize  upon  every  means  in  our  power,  to  come  at  the 
revealed  truths  of  scripture.  Truth  in  religion,  as  iu 
every  thing  else,  is  known  by  its  simplicity;  error  in- 
volves in  us  perplexities,  fills  us  with  doubt,  and  leaves 
us  in  despair.  Truth  is  luminous;  it  sends  forth  a 
steady  light.  Error  is  dark,  and  spreads  darkness 
around  it.  Truth  is  the  guide  to  virtue;  it  is  attended 
with  harmony  and  peace.  Error  opens  a  broad  way 
to  vice,  and  draws  the  heedless  and  unsuspecting  into 
its  snares.  We  should  remember,  nevertheless,  that 
opinions  are  important,  as  far  as  they  influence  the 
conduct,  and  no  farther.  A  correct  faith  will  make 
no  amends  for  a  bad  life.  Faith  is  not  religion,  any 
more  than  opinions  are  actions.  To  be  religious 
we  must  have  faith;  to  act  rightly,  we  must  think 
rightly;  and  yet,  we  may  have  faith  and  no  religion. 
as  we  may  think  and  never  act. 

This  truth  is  of  great  practical  importance.  It  will 
cause  us  to  exercise  forbearance  and  a  good  temper  to- 


S68 

Wards  those  with  whom  we  do  not  agree  in  religious 
opinions.  While  there  is  such  a  variety  of  character- 
istic features  in  the  minds,  constitutional  tempera- 
ments, dispositions,  associated  impressions,  and  early 
habits  of  men;  while  there  are  such  various  degrees  of 
knowledge,  mental  light,  and  strength  of  understand- 
ing, it  is  not  possible,  that  all  men  should  think  alike. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  they  should.  It  is  not  required  of 
us,  that  we  never  be  in  error,  but  that  we  use  our  best 
endeavours  to  avoid  it.  Our  duty  is  discharged  when 
we  have  done  this,  and  it  is  our  misfortune,  and  not 
our  fault,  if  we  still  remain  in  the  dark.  All  this  may 
be  granted,  without  affording  any  possible  excuse  for 
not  keeping  up  the  temper,  the  dispositions,  the  feel- 
ings,  and  practice  of  christians.  There  is  no  occasion 
for  difference  here,  but  our  own  perverseness,  cher- 
ished ill  nature,  and  evil  passions.  If  we  have  any 
regard  for  the  example  of  our  Saviour,  and  the  noble 
virtue  of  charity,  which  he  enjoined,  we  shall  sooa 
learn  to  subdue  these,  to  lay  aside  our  narrow  preju- 
dices, to  disdain  the  invidious  distinctions  of  names 
and  sects,  to  brush  away  the  films  through  which  we 
can  see  the  errors  and  faults,  but  not  the  virtues  of 
our  fellowmen;  we  shall  learn,  that  all  men  are  in  the 
hands  of  God,  that  in  the  concerns  of  religion,  all  have 
equal  privileges  and  freedom,  and  are  entitled  to  equal 
claims  on  our  candour,  affection,  tenderness,  and  chris- 
tian love. 


iHE  i:xr) 


ERRATA. 

For  "conclusive,"  page  10,  line  6,  read  "exclusive" — ^for  "either,"  p.  57, 1.27, 
read  "other"— p.  76, 1.  10,  before  "sacrifice"  insert  "last"— line  at  bottom,  for 
"adopt,"  read  "adapt" — for  "possess,"  p.  95,  1,  25,  read  "profess" — for  "se- 
venth," p.  135, 1.  6,  read  "seventeenth"— p.  150, 1.  12,  omit,  "and  essential"— 
tor  "in,"  p.  158, 1.  25,  read  "into"— for  "sseouli,"  p.  247,  line  at  bottom,  read 
"seculi." 


^ 


V'{;    ■y,^'p:tif^% 


